President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

#24,026
#24,026
Vol8188 said:
That case was about a private conversation, and regarding a public sector job. Meaning it only applies to public sector jobs and to speech in private.
Click to expand...
Exactly.. when you have a government job, the POTUS is the head honcho.. doesn’t matter if you like him or not 😂 you absolutely cannot make threats, no matter how stupid they are.. I honestly think he was just trying to be cute and have other liberals go ‘oh Jimbo, you’re so clever’ 😂 but you can’t do that
 
#24,027
#24,027
Vol8188 said:
That case was about a private conversation, and regarding a public sector job. Meaning it only applies to public sector jobs and to speech in private.
Click to expand...
He’ll zig zag for many post saying it’s on par with the former FBI director using a social media platform.
 
#24,028
#24,028
Vol8188 said:
That case was about a private conversation, and regarding a public sector job. Meaning it only applies to public sector jobs and to speech in private.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's right that it only applies to private conversations.

.... but regardless, there is enough ambiguity over the use of "86" that it will be impossible to charge him with anything and he is no longer employed by the federal government. It was ridiculous of the Associate Deputy DA to say that he is headed to prison. I don't even like Comey.
 
#24,030
#24,030
Majors said:
You mean when we were attacked? Sorry you’re a 9/11 terrorist sympathizer.
Click to expand...
One of the most ignorant posts I've ever seen on here. I was obviously referring to Iraq, who never attacked the United States or had anything to do with 9/11.

The rationale that Bush used for the invasion was plainly a lie. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: midnight orange and swampfoxfan
#24,031
#24,031
BowlBrother85 said:
I don't think that's right that it only applies to private conversations.

.... but regardless, there is enough ambiguity over the use of "86" that it will be impossible to charge him with anything and he is no longer employed by the federal government. It was ridiculous of the Associate Deputy DA to say that he is headed to prison. I don't even like Comey.
Click to expand...

Agreed that he shouldn’t be charged. Also, if someone wanted to fire him, they should be 100% able to do so. Theres no right to be an employee.
 
#24,039
#24,039
BowlBrother85 said:
Her name was Ardith McPherson .... Read the article from the LA Times, and then explain how Iraq was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This should be good.

How ignorant.
Click to expand...
Sorry, War on Terror. But you knew that.

Like I said, sorry you’re a terrorist sympathizer.
 
#24,043
#24,043
jmacvols1 said:
Click to expand...

I know enough about Leading Report to be skeptical of anything they post. I highly doubt that actually happens. There is too much ambiguity over "86" when used as a verb. In slang, it primarily means to throw out, dismiss or refuse service to someone or something. It does not have to involve an act of violence.
 
#24,044
#24,044
Majors said:
LA Times, you don’t say.
Click to expand...
Or just Google "Rankin v. McPherson Supreme Court decision March 23, 1987." You will find many different sources that will all say the same thing : It was a 5-4 decision, with the majority holding that Rankin's interest in firing McPherson was outweighed by her rights under the First Amendment.

..... and I'm still waiting for you to explain how Iraq was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
 
#24,046
#24,046
Majors said:
Sorry, War on Terror. But you knew that.

Like I said, sorry you’re a terrorist sympathizer.
Click to expand...
No, I didn't know what you meant. I was going off of what you said, and the Bush administration's own rationale for the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. The Bush administration falsely led the American people to believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

That is so stupid.
 
#24,047
#24,047
BowlBrother85 said:
Or just Google "Rankin v. McPherson Supreme Court decision March 23, 1987." You will find many different sources that will all say the same thing : It was a 5-4 decision, with the majority holding that Rankin's interest in firing McPherson was outweighed by her rights under the First Amendment.

..... and I'm still waiting for you to explain how Iraq was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Click to expand...
War on Terror, 3rd time, not sure why you’re waiting.
 
#24,048
#24,048
Majors said:
War on Terror, 3rd time, not sure why you’re waiting.
Click to expand...
The war on terror was not the rationale that the Bush administration used for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The Bush administration specifically said that the purpose of the invasion was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is at least the 3rd time I have had to say this. You are thick.
 
#24,050
#24,050
BowlBrother85 said:
I know enough about Leading Report to be skeptical of anything they post. I highly doubt that actually happens. There is too much ambiguity over "86" when used as a verb. In slang, it primarily means to throw out, dismiss or refuse service to someone or something. It does not have to involve an act of violence.
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top