Acceptable registrations in the queue through May 12 at 7:00p ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
Ooops! Stay Classi-fied.
Re: Ooops! Stay Classi-fied.
..
Last edited by TC Talks on Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Blessed are those who are righteous in his name.”
― Matt
Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.
― Matt
Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.
Re: Ooops! Stay Classi-fied.
How many of your insurrection heroes are in prison now?
“Blessed are those who are righteous in his name.”
― Matt
Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.
― Matt
Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.
-
- Posts: 4273
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 10:09 pm
- Location: Brighton
Re: Ooops! Stay Classi-fied.
It will be, though.
One is petty larceny, the other is grand larceny. Fortunately, either way, you're gonna be punished.
Unless you're my wife's ex-husband. Guy could r*pe 3 women, kill a child, drive drunk into a daycare center and steal a grand from a blind man and STILL be home the next night.
"Internet is no more like radio than intravenous feeding is like fine dining."
-TurkeyTop
-TurkeyTop
Re: Ooops! Stay Classi-fied.
deflect...deflect...deflect... Put your resume in to replace KJP yet?
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: Ooops! Stay Classi-fied.
Nope. They're both armed robbery no matter the amount.Mega Hertz wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:57 pmIt will be, though.
One is petty larceny, the other is grand larceny. Fortunately, either way, you're gonna be punished.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
-
- Posts: 4273
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 10:09 pm
- Location: Brighton
Re: Ooops! Stay Classi-fied.
That's on me, then. I missed the "armed" part!Bryce wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:58 pmNope. They're both armed robbery no matter the amount.Mega Hertz wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:57 pmIt will be, though.
One is petty larceny, the other is grand larceny. Fortunately, either way, you're gonna be punished.
"Internet is no more like radio than intravenous feeding is like fine dining."
-TurkeyTop
-TurkeyTop
Re: Ooops! Stay Classi-fied.
If you use a stupid analogy that’s worth at least a day right?
Armed robbery is a terrible example. Why don’t we use the actual code? The subject matter at hand isn’t theoretical. The entire question hinges on intent and that strongly turns on their behavior. Immediately giving up the goods, searching your properties and offices high and low and fully cooperating suggests no intent.
Fighting tooth and nail and having your lawyers do illegal things to block the archives from getting to the materials suggests intent. Pretty cut and dry.
Re: Ooops! Stay Classi-fied.
The Presidential Records Act doesn't apply to a Vice President.Rate This wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:10 pmIf you use a stupid analogy that’s worth at least a day right?
Armed robbery is a terrible example. Why don’t we use the actual code? The subject matter at hand isn’t theoretical. The entire question hinges on intent and that strongly turns on their behavior. Immediately giving up the goods, searching your properties and offices high and low and fully cooperating suggests no intent.
Fighting tooth and nail and having your lawyers do illegal things to block the archives from getting to the materials suggests intent. Pretty cut and dry.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: Ooops! Stay Classi-fied.
That’s not the law I’m referring to… 18 U.S. Code 2071 is where I’m going with this:Bryce wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:33 pmThe Presidential Records Act doesn't apply to a Vice President.Rate This wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:10 pmIf you use a stupid analogy that’s worth at least a day right?
Armed robbery is a terrible example. Why don’t we use the actual code? The subject matter at hand isn’t theoretical. The entire question hinges on intent and that strongly turns on their behavior. Immediately giving up the goods, searching your properties and offices high and low and fully cooperating suggests no intent.
Fighting tooth and nail and having your lawyers do illegal things to block the archives from getting to the materials suggests intent. Pretty cut and dry.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071
Was the stuff intentionally or accidentally removed? That’s the crux of the issue. Neither Trump nor Biden were protected by the Presidential Records Act at the time that the materials were asked for or discovered respectively. So delete that from your repertoire… it’s not Germaine here.
Re: Ooops! Stay Classi-fied.
Not deflecting, all you need to do is acknowledge that Trump has committed worse crimes and hundreds of people around him have been convincted. You nit wits are on this one issue cause that's all there is...
Meanwhile you run like a bunch of cowards when your suckassed loser gets hit over and over.
So this isn't deflection, it's the truth.
“Blessed are those who are righteous in his name.”
― Matt
Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.
― Matt
Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.
Re: Ooops! Stay Classi-fied.
And I contend that that code doesn't apply to a President and his own records.Rate This wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:38 pmThat’s not the law I’m referring to… 18 U.S. Code 2071 is where I’m going with this:Bryce wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:33 pmThe Presidential Records Act doesn't apply to a Vice President.Rate This wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:10 pmIf you use a stupid analogy that’s worth at least a day right?
Armed robbery is a terrible example. Why don’t we use the actual code? The subject matter at hand isn’t theoretical. The entire question hinges on intent and that strongly turns on their behavior. Immediately giving up the goods, searching your properties and offices high and low and fully cooperating suggests no intent.
Fighting tooth and nail and having your lawyers do illegal things to block the archives from getting to the materials suggests intent. Pretty cut and dry.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071
Was the stuff intentionally or accidentally removed? That’s the crux of the issue. Neither Trump nor Biden were protected by the Presidential Records Act at the time that the materials were asked for or discovered respectively. So delete that from your repertoire… it’s not Germaine here.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: Ooops! Stay Classi-fied.
You employ truthiness as much as you like...Bryce wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 4:02 pmAnd I contend that that code doesn't apply to a President and his own records.Rate This wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:38 pmThat’s not the law I’m referring to… 18 U.S. Code 2071 is where I’m going with this:Bryce wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:33 pmThe Presidential Records Act doesn't apply to a Vice President.Rate This wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:10 pmIf you use a stupid analogy that’s worth at least a day right?
Armed robbery is a terrible example. Why don’t we use the actual code? The subject matter at hand isn’t theoretical. The entire question hinges on intent and that strongly turns on their behavior. Immediately giving up the goods, searching your properties and offices high and low and fully cooperating suggests no intent.
Fighting tooth and nail and having your lawyers do illegal things to block the archives from getting to the materials suggests intent. Pretty cut and dry.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071
Was the stuff intentionally or accidentally removed? That’s the crux of the issue. Neither Trump nor Biden were protected by the Presidential Records Act at the time that the materials were asked for or discovered respectively. So delete that from your repertoire… it’s not Germaine here.
“Blessed are those who are righteous in his name.”
― Matt
Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.
― Matt
Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.
- audiophile
- Posts: 8610
- Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
- Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.
Re: Ooops! Stay Classi-fied.
If this is true I expect Biden will be gone soon.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA16ppZU
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA16ppZU
Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!
Re: Ooops! Stay Classi-fied.
audiophile wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 4:06 pmIf this is true I expect Biden will be gone soon.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA16ppZU
Re: Ooops! Stay Classi-fied.
The records seized were not “his” property. They were government property and the law ceases to apply to him after he is president. So he was exposed in 2021. You can contend whatever you want to justify Trump… you’re factually incorrect however.Bryce wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 4:02 pmAnd I contend that that code doesn't apply to a President and his own records.Rate This wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:38 pmThat’s not the law I’m referring to… 18 U.S. Code 2071 is where I’m going with this:Bryce wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:33 pmThe Presidential Records Act doesn't apply to a Vice President.Rate This wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:10 pmIf you use a stupid analogy that’s worth at least a day right?
Armed robbery is a terrible example. Why don’t we use the actual code? The subject matter at hand isn’t theoretical. The entire question hinges on intent and that strongly turns on their behavior. Immediately giving up the goods, searching your properties and offices high and low and fully cooperating suggests no intent.
Fighting tooth and nail and having your lawyers do illegal things to block the archives from getting to the materials suggests intent. Pretty cut and dry.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071
Was the stuff intentionally or accidentally removed? That’s the crux of the issue. Neither Trump nor Biden were protected by the Presidential Records Act at the time that the materials were asked for or discovered respectively. So delete that from your repertoire… it’s not Germaine here.