DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus The. Dems.

This is how people know you don't pay attention. The woman shot and killed in Minnesota was an American. The man they drug out of that house half naked I posted? He was an American. Those police officers their chief told you were pulled over, some repeatedly? They were Americans. Many of the people they pull over, harass and often times detain? They are here legally and or are Americans. And you never say a damn word about it.

You are really a sad individual. You seem to have no problem with Americans being harassed, abused and detained by ICE if their skin is brown.

Reading your post lets me know that people like you carrying a gun is dangerous. "But officer, I felt some kind of way!?

Those are all baseless claims. I trust our men and women in uniform. They are the best of us. They are doing a thankless job and thugs in the streets actual trashy people are stopping them from performing their jobs. The people in that church had their rights violated by those same trashy human beings being nothing more than street thugs.

If someone burst into a school, would you feel the same way?

You do in this country have a right to defend yourself. If you feel your life or the life of your family is threatened, you can react with force. Kyle Rittenhouse proves that point. There are stand your ground laws out there for a reason. A mob kicking in a door to a place where you and your family are at would be justifiable self-defense. You don't wait and ask someone when they break down your door what are your intentions. An armed man is a citizen, and unarmed man is a statistic.

It has to be a "reasonable" fear for your life. For someone who touts the law you seem to have no idea what the law is. If someone in that church actually started shooting these people there would be lot of questions asked and a basis of "reasonable fear" for those actions would have to be justified.

Questions would be asked like "Were they armed?" "Did they verbally threaten you with violence?"

The problem with your hyperbole is nobody "kicked down the door" of that church.

Questions like this would also probably be asked in this situation. "Were your doors locked"? "Do you have a no trespassing sign or members only sign posted?" "Do you or don't you allow uninvited guests to attend your church services?"

Standards must be met to show you had "reasonable fear" for your life. Not that you just "felt some kind of way".

Like I said, what they did was wrong. But claiming it gave anyone the right to just shoot them is some figment of your own imagination.

And this? That's just pure BS.

The American citizen they drug out of his house? He was doing interviews just a few hours later because they had to let him go.

That police chief of Minneapolis wears a uniform too. In your world he is just lying about what his officers are experiencing when they're off duty? And they wear a uniform too. It seems it's not really about wearing a uniform. It's about who is paying for that person to be wearing which uniform.

Sticking your fingers in your ears screaming "La, la, la, la, la, la" doesn't mean these things aren't happening.

Any time you have a large number of people in a group you will have both good and bad. Thinking that changes just because those people are wearing a uniform is a fools dream. Not all ICE agents are bad but some are. The same goes for cops, plumbers or any other profession. Surely you can't be that naive. But on the other hand......

No, but Don Lemon is one of (if not the last) person I'd look to as a positive example of pro journalism.


These guerilla journalists don't make any sort of effort to mask their agenda/bias. To me, it seems silly to decry reporters/journos from MSM outlets for their failed attempts to hide extreme bias and cherry-picking only to turn to people who do largely the same thing but do so loud and proud.

"We have to save our democracy!!"

More right wing propaganda.

Jack Smith didn't have any "political opponents" at that time. He has prosecuted both Republican as well as Democrat officials. He carried out his duties. He has political enemies now. A bunch of trumpian minions who will attack and make up BS about anyone who dares question their king.

So Smith legally filed for and got a subpoena. Oh the humanity!

#dontworrynotlawfare

"We are above the law! You should always disclose you are getting information from us via a subpoena! We know you would never do that in a criminal investigation against anyone else but we have a special privileges!"

They sound like a bunch of snot nosed brats.

You can write any narrative you like when you interrupt someone and not allow them to answer your questions. Or stop a video before they answer the question completely. They did exactly that all day long.

Soooo, all these republicans were flight risks??

The Questioning: Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) asked if McCarthy was a flight risk, to which Smith replied, "He was not".

The Explanation: When pressed on why the order, which cited "flight from prosecution, destruction of or tampering with evidence, intimidation of potential witnesses," was used, Smith explained that such language is often part of "boilerplate" or standardized, comprehensive legal language to protect investigations.

Context of Risk: Smith clarified that the "risks aren't necessarily associated with the subscriber to the phone" but rather "to the investigation" itself. He noted the risks were related to broader, potential obstruction in his investigations into Donald Trump.

That explains plainly what the term "flight risk" entailed and contained in the order in question.

That's some nice legal gymnastics. Everyone knows this was so that he could "gag" them the way he gagged Trump.

Nobody is dumb enough to believe different.

And anybody that believes he wasn't 100% biased and hell-bent on "Get Trump!!!" is even dumber than that. Period.

I get it.. Nobody that actually reads what the order says will believe what the order says.

Instead they wish to select only a small portion of what is included in the actual subpoena explaining what was meant by "flight risk" and ignore the rest of it to remove the actual context of the order to try and score political points.

A lot of people who pay attention get it.

This in a nut shell.

"