Why the Liberals REALLY Oppose the Senator Session AG Appointment

[martybegan]

you do know what the guys in your portrait did, right?

Yes - they founded the greatest nation on earth. Why?

And did they break laws to do it?

What?!? First of all - can you produce any credible source that England had an actual law that dictated it was illegal to break apart from England?

Second - are you really trying to compare idiotically frying your brain (because you think it is "fun") to people who fought for liberty?

Please, for the love of God, tell me I'm wrong and I'm misinterpreting your post. I realize that it takes a junior high mentality to say "Duuuuuuude....I wanna get high" but you can't be so stupid as to think getting stoned is even remotely in the stratosphere with men who secured liberty. Can you?

Liberty is exactly why people should be able to "fry their brain" if they so choose so. We allow it with alcohol, why is THC any worse?

and "revolt against the crown" is surely a law in England, and those guys broke it in spades.

Liberty comes in all sorts of degrees, and there is no honor in following laws that are unjust and/or stupid.

 

[P@triot]

Liberty is exactly why people should be able to "fry their brain" if they so choose so. We allow it with alcohol, why is THC any worse?

Wait. Wait. Wait. This is a monumental shift in position here. Are drugs worse than alcohol? Most people would say yes. Heroin. Cocaine. Crystal Meth. That stuff can kill people the first time they try it.

But to your comment about "liberty" - you're breaking the law. If you think liberty entitles you to fry your own brain - you have representatives. Go to them and ask them to get the law changed so that drugs are legal. If you can't, then respect the fact that the American people have spoken.

Liberty does not equal anarchy despite what progressive will attempt to claim. We are blessed as a people to dictate how our own country runs. If we as a people decide that drugs are a problem for society - you have to respect that. If you don't, we'll throw your ass in prison (where it belongs).

If you can convince the American people do legalize drugs tomorrow - so be it. I'll respect that. Unlike you - I won't go around destroying people's crops are stealing their drugs and flushing them. Why? Because I respect the law. Once we become a lawless nation - we have nothing.

 

[mamooth]

All I've done is ask for proof. Prove it..

If you want me to play your dishonest games, I set the rules. Try to deal with that without crying.

After all, we know what you'd do if I did post the proof of how often I've criticized Democrats. You'd ignore it, refuse to apologize for lying, and then continue to tell the same lies. I hope you don't embarrass yourself by denying that.

That's why I require you put some skin in the game first. You need to be held accountable for your chronic disgusting behavior. Normal ethical people, I don't do that. I initially assume honesty from people, until they work diligently to disappoint me, as you did.

 

[P@triot]

and "revolt against the crown" is surely a law in England, and those guys broke it in spades.

Well don't just make an outrageous accusation. Prove it. It may have been. I admit I don't know. But I've never seen anything that indicated England actually had a law on the books against it.

 

[P@triot]

All I've done is ask for proof. Prove it..

If you want me to play your dishonest games, I set the rules.

Sweetie...you couldn't set an alarm clock. You're lost, dazed, and confused 24x7. You don't know which way is up. You're refusal to back up your claims speaks volumes to the USMB community. Game over.

 

[P@triot]

After all, we know what you'd do if I did post the proof of how often I've criticized Democrats. You'd ignore it, refuse to apologize for lying, and then continue to tell the same lies. I hope you don't embarrass yourself by denying that.

Well by that "logic" - why are you insisting on a bet? Wouldn't I just "refuse" to leave USMB? You truly are a special kind of stupid. You can't make a single post without contradicting yourself.

 

[martybegan]

Liberty is exactly why people should be able to "fry their brain" if they so choose so. We allow it with alcohol, why is THC any worse?

Wait. Wait. Wait. This is a monumental shift in position here. Are drugs worse than alcohol? Most people would say yes. Heroin. Cocaine. Crystal Meth. That stuff can kill people the first time they try it.

But to your comment about "liberty" - you're breaking the law. If you think liberty entitles you to fry your own brain - you have representatives. Go to them and ask them to get the law changed so that drugs are legal. If you can't, then respect the fact that the American people have spoken.

Liberty does not equal anarchy despite what progressive will attempt to claim. We are blessed as a people to dictate how our own country runs. If we as a people decide that drugs are a problem for society - you have to respect that. If you don't, we'll throw your ass in prison (where it belongs).

If you can convince the American people do legalize drugs tomorrow - so be it. I'll respect that. Unlike you - I won't go around destroying people's crops are stealing their drugs and flushing them. Why? Because I respect the law. Once we become a lawless nation - we have nothing.

When laws are stupid, and the ability to break them is as easy as breaking pot laws, then my position is the law shouldn't be there in the first place. laws are for things like murder, and robbery, not smoking a doobie in your basement.

The increase in stupid nanny laws is why respect for the law is in decline.

 

[martybegan]

and "revolt against the crown" is surely a law in England, and those guys broke it in spades.

Well don't just make an outrageous accusation. Prove it. It may have been. I admit I don't know. But I've never seen anything that indicated England actually had a law on the books against it.

They were English Citizens, they revolted against the authority of the Crown. if the Crown had won, you don't think some of them would have been brought before a court on charges of Treason?

 

[P@triot]

When laws are stupid, and the ability to break them is as easy as breaking pot laws, then my position is the law shouldn't be there in the first place. laws are for things like murder, and robbery, not smoking a doobie in your basement.

The increase in stupid nanny laws is why respect for the law is in decline.

Brilliant "logic" there martybegan. Ted Bundy thought laws against rape and murder were "stupid". And he found them awfully easy to break as well.

Basically you're saying that your ego doesn't permit you to respect the law. If you deem a law shouldn't exist - fuck all of America. It's your nation and you'll do it your way. Nice. That pot has done it's just - your brain is complete mush. Junior high is over brother. Time to grow up and move on.

 

[P@triot]

and "revolt against the crown" is surely a law in England, and those guys broke it in spades.

Well don't just make an outrageous accusation. Prove it. It may have been. I admit I don't know. But I've never seen anything that indicated England actually had a law on the books against it.

They were English Citizens, they revolted against the authority of the Crown. if the Crown had won, you don't think some of them would have been brought before a court on charges of Treason?

I doubt they would be brought before a court. I'm sure the king would have just had them executed. But that doesn't change the fact that you can't make outrageous claims. Neither you nor I know 18th century English law. If you can find something proving you're correct - great. I'm happy to learn something (I find history fascinating). But don't just go around making shit up because you're brain is fried. That's irresponsible.

 

[mamooth]

Well by that "logic" - why are you insisting on a bet? Wouldn't I just "refuse" to leave USMB? You truly are a special kind of stupid. You can't make a single post without contradicting yourself.

Of course you'd weasel out. Good of you to admit it.

Point is, you'd be humiliated even more.

Like you just were.

Given the degree of your meltdown state now, I think it's best that I not play "poke-the-loony" any more. I wouldn't want you to do harm to yourself, and my work here is done.

 

[martybegan]

When laws are stupid, and the ability to break them is as easy as breaking pot laws, then my position is the law shouldn't be there in the first place. laws are for things like murder, and robbery, not smoking a doobie in your basement.

The increase in stupid nanny laws is why respect for the law is in decline.

Brilliant "logic" there martybegan. Ted Bundy thought laws against rape and murder were "stupid". And he found them awfully easy to break as well.

Basically you're saying that your ego doesn't permit you to respect the law. If you deem a law shouldn't exist - fuck all of America. It's your nation and you'll do it your way. Nice. That pot has done it's just - your brain is complete mush. Junior high is over brother. Time to grow up and move on.

99.99999999% of people agree that rape and murder should be illegal. The # of people who think pot should be legal is much higher than 0.0000000001%. There is also the whole immediate harm to others thing that rape and murder entail.

Pot laws, on the other hand, are basically " I don't like X, so you shouldn't like it either" And laws like that do nothing but create more disrespect for the law in general.

 

[martybegan]

and "revolt against the crown" is surely a law in England, and those guys broke it in spades.

Well don't just make an outrageous accusation. Prove it. It may have been. I admit I don't know. But I've never seen anything that indicated England actually had a law on the books against it.

They were English Citizens, they revolted against the authority of the Crown. if the Crown had won, you don't think some of them would have been brought before a court on charges of Treason?

I doubt they would be brought before a court. I'm sure the king would have just had them executed. But that doesn't change the fact that you can't make outrageous claims. Neither you nor I know 18th century English law. If you can find something proving you're correct - great. I'm happy to learn something (I find history fascinating). But don't just go around making shit up because you're brain is fried. That's irresponsible.

It was Treason to the Crown.

Treason Act 1351 - Wikipedia

A person was guilty of high treason under the Act if they:

• "compassed or imagined" (i.e. planned; the original Norman French was "fait compasser ou ymaginer") the death of the King, his wife or his eldest son and heir (following the coming into force of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 on 26 March 2015,[10] this has effect as if the reference were to the eldest child and heir);[11]
• violated the King's companion, the King's eldest daughter if she was unmarried or the wife of the King's eldest son and heir (following the coming into force of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, this has effect as if the reference were to the eldest son only if he is also the heir[12]);
• levied war against the King in his Realm;
• adhered to the King's enemies in his Realm, giving them aid and comfort in his Realm or elsewhere;

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don't know if Sessions is a racist. I just know he has a long history of doing whatever he can to keep black people from voting.

Because blacks are too stupid to be able to vote without Dimocratic Party assistance you mean.

What an utterly patronistic form of racism.

 

[P@triot]

Well by that "logic" - why are you insisting on a bet? Wouldn't I just "refuse" to leave USMB? You truly are a special kind of stupid. You can't make a single post without contradicting yourself.

Of course you'd weasel out. Good of you to admit it.

So wait....now you're trying to weasel out of contradicting yourself? You've demanded that I place a bet with you that ends with me leaving USMB if I'm wrong because you find me such a threat. Then you state that the bet is necessary because I would never admit I was wrong without the bet. Well, if I wouldn't do something as trivial as admit I was wrong, I certainly wouldn't do something larger like leave USMB. You contradict yourself because you're so stupid. And then, when I'm forced to point that out to you (because you're too stupid to collect your own thoughts and see your own words), you attempt to spin that as something you planned?!?

Oh sweetie...you are a gem. I can see why you so desperately want me to leave USMB.

 

[P@triot]

Well by that "logic" - why are you insisting on a bet? Wouldn't I just "refuse" to leave USMB? You truly are a special kind of stupid. You can't make a single post without contradicting yourself.

Point is, you'd be humiliated even more.

How could one be "humiliated more"? If you're wrong on an issue, you're wrong on an issue. How can it increase?

 

[P@triot]

and "revolt against the crown" is surely a law in England, and those guys broke it in spades.

Well don't just make an outrageous accusation. Prove it. It may have been. I admit I don't know. But I've never seen anything that indicated England actually had a law on the books against it.

They were English Citizens, they revolted against the authority of the Crown. if the Crown had won, you don't think some of them would have been brought before a court on charges of Treason?

I doubt they would be brought before a court. I'm sure the king would have just had them executed. But that doesn't change the fact that you can't make outrageous claims. Neither you nor I know 18th century English law. If you can find something proving you're correct - great. I'm happy to learn something (I find history fascinating). But don't just go around making shit up because you're brain is fried. That's irresponsible.

It was Treason to the Crown.

Treason Act 1351 - Wikipedia

A person was guilty of high treason under the Act if they:

• "compassed or imagined" (i.e. planned; the original Norman French was "fait compasser ou ymaginer") the death of the King, his wife or his eldest son and heir (following the coming into force of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 on 26 March 2015,[10] this has effect as if the reference were to the eldest child and heir);[11]
• violated the King's companion, the King's eldest daughter if she was unmarried or the wife of the King's eldest son and heir (following the coming into force of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, this has effect as if the reference were to the eldest son only if he is also the heir[12]);
• levied war against the King in his Realm;
• adhered to the King's enemies in his Realm, giving them aid and comfort in his Realm or elsewhere;

Good stuff. Thanks for finding and posting.

Ok - so the founders broke the law for liberty. You have liberty. You have representatives that you can vote for or against to get the laws shaped as you'd like them. If you're unable to achieve that because the American people disagree with you - then you have no choice to respect that.

Again - liberty does not equal anarchy. You don't get to just do what you want under the guise of "liberty". I don't have the liberty to rob a bank. You don't have the liberty to get high.

 

[martybegan]

and "revolt against the crown" is surely a law in England, and those guys broke it in spades.

Well don't just make an outrageous accusation. Prove it. It may have been. I admit I don't know. But I've never seen anything that indicated England actually had a law on the books against it.

They were English Citizens, they revolted against the authority of the Crown. if the Crown had won, you don't think some of them would have been brought before a court on charges of Treason?

I doubt they would be brought before a court. I'm sure the king would have just had them executed. But that doesn't change the fact that you can't make outrageous claims. Neither you nor I know 18th century English law. If you can find something proving you're correct - great. I'm happy to learn something (I find history fascinating). But don't just go around making shit up because you're brain is fried. That's irresponsible.

It was Treason to the Crown.

Treason Act 1351 - Wikipedia

A person was guilty of high treason under the Act if they:

• "compassed or imagined" (i.e. planned; the original Norman French was "fait compasser ou ymaginer") the death of the King, his wife or his eldest son and heir (following the coming into force of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 on 26 March 2015,[10] this has effect as if the reference were to the eldest child and heir);[11]
• violated the King's companion, the King's eldest daughter if she was unmarried or the wife of the King's eldest son and heir (following the coming into force of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, this has effect as if the reference were to the eldest son only if he is also the heir[12]);
• levied war against the King in his Realm;
• adhered to the King's enemies in his Realm, giving them aid and comfort in his Realm or elsewhere;

Good stuff. Thanks for finding and posting.

Ok - so the founders broke the law for liberty. You have liberty. You have representatives that you can vote for or against to get the laws shaped as you'd like them. If you're unable to achieve that because the American people disagree with you - then you have no choice to respect that.

Again - liberty does not equal anarchy. You don't get to just do what you want under the guise of "liberty". I don't have the liberty to rob a bank. You don't have the liberty to get high.

Liberty implies a situation where people do no make laws because they think something isn't fun, and therefore everyone else has to think the same way.

Again, robbing a bank involves harm to someone else, i.e. the bank and the people who keep money in said bank. How is me smoking a bowl after work harming anyone if 1) I pay for the weed out of my own pocket and 2) I get to work and am a productive member of society the next day?

 

[ChrisL]

And by the way, the reason I use the cat avatar is because it causes the disgusting human beings who have serious issues with women to put their pathology on open display. Obviously, it worked again.

Bwahahahahaha! Yeah...that's why you have it. Sweetie - I have no issues with women. At all. Ask Tilly. Ask LadyGunSlinger. Ask ChrisL. The lists goes on and on and on. I have two daughters who I adore.

You're a typical misandrist feminist. You believe that all men will treat you inferior so you pretend to be a man. You're clearly a woman. I can tell by how you phrase things (men and women have different styles my dear).

Meh, you're okay I guess.

 

[P@triot]

And by the way, the reason I use the cat avatar is because it causes the disgusting human beings who have serious issues with women to put their pathology on open display. Obviously, it worked again.

Bwahahahahaha! Yeah...that's why you have it. Sweetie - I have no issues with women. At all. Ask Tilly. Ask LadyGunSlinger. Ask ChrisL. The lists goes on and on and on. I have two daughters who I adore.

You're a typical misandrist feminist. You believe that all men will treat you inferior so you pretend to be a man. You're clearly a woman. I can tell by how you phrase things (men and women have different styles my dear).

Meh, you're okay I guess.

Well I didn't say I was "ok". I'm clearly an a-hole! I just said that I don't have issues with women...