Birth Citizenship, and Trump smokes crack

[jimnyc]

Quote me on what EOs i've endorsed.
please quote me on what I've implied.

I'll save you a search. I haven't backed or positively mentioned anyone's policies so far. I could barely watch the debates or listen to any of them.

Exactly, you ignore the others. You have NO IDEA what platforms candidates like Cruz and Rand Paul are running on? Do you really expect me to believe you are clueless as to Paul's platform an stances on the NSA issues and such? You quickly jump to condemn Trump on things you assume he means - but not a peep on things, for example, where someone like Paul HAS stated he would do an end around. Odd that.

[jimnyc]

Quote me on what EOs i've endorsed.
please quote me on what I've implied.

I'll save you a search. I haven't backed or positively mentioned anyone's policies so far. I could barely watch the debates or listen to any of them.

I brought up Paul earlier and his planned end around. Your reply was that not all EO's are unconstitutional. Sounds to me like an implied endorsement - mainly because you agree with him of course. But if it's good for one, it's good for another. If it's wrong for one, and they should go a "legal route", then that's how it is for others. Then you said that not all EO's are unconstitutional. Well hell, Trump hasn't barely stated anything other than he would want to test something and you're going on about how it's unconstitutional and how he's just the same as Obama and Bush.

WHO determines the constitutionality of such, Rev? Rand Paul? You? Why is it ok for Paul to use an EO on opening day, but not Trump, if that were the case? It's OK for Paul to avoid congress and the courts, but wrong if someone else does it?

BS, he doesn't get a pass just because it's YOUR cause of the day. They can go 100% the legal route as well. And not even an EO should be allowed to instantly yank back national security.

[Gunny]

Exactly, you ignore the others. You have NO IDEA what platforms candidates like Cruz and Rand Paul are running on? Do you really expect me to believe you are clueless as to Paul's platform an stances on the NSA issues and such? You quickly jump to condemn Trump on things you assume he means - but not a peep on things, for example, where someone like Paul HAS stated he would do an end around. Odd that.

He's quite the cherry picker, that's for sure. Tends to leave out all the relevant facts.

[revelarts]

Exactly, you ignore the others. You have NO IDEA what platforms candidates like Cruz and Rand Paul are running on? Do you really expect me to believe you are clueless as to Paul's platform an stances on the NSA issues and such? You quickly jump to condemn Trump on things you assume he means - but not a peep on things, for example, where someone like Paul HAS stated he would do an end around. Odd that.

very little on specifics. I know what Rand has said from older info more than the past few months.
when you create a thread on "Rand Paul smokes crack" with O'reily pointing out the the unconstitutional proposals then maybe i'll jump in with both feet and defend or condemn him. then please feel free to point out my hypocrisy but "don't put words in my mouth" or assume you know what i think about it until then Jim. thanks

Funny you're upset that I'm not bringing up Rand Paul in YOUR thread about Trump Jim.

[Gunny]

very little on specifics. I know what Rand has said from older info more than the past few months.
when you create a thread on "Rand Paul smokes crack" with O'reily pointing out the the unconstitutional proposals then maybe i'll jump in with both feet and defend or condemn him. then please feel free to point out my hypocrisy but "don't put words in my mouth" or assume you know what i think about it until then Jim. thanks

Funny you're upset that I'm not bringing up Rand Paul in YOUR thread about Trump Jim.

I must be invisible. Or did I call you what you are?

Let's play. What specifically is a unconstitutional proposal by Rand Paul? Fuckwit. You don't like manning up to shit, do you?

[jimnyc]

very little on specifics. I know what Rand has said from older info more than the past few months.
when you create a thread on "Rand Paul smokes crack" with O'reily pointing out the the unconstitutional proposals then maybe i'll jump in with both feet and defend or condemn him. then please feel free to point out my hypocrisy but "don't put words in my mouth" or assume you know what i think about it until then Jim. thanks

Funny you're upset that I'm not bringing up Rand Paul in YOUR thread about Trump Jim.

Goodnight, into the 86 can alongside Gabby.

[jimnyc]

He's quite the cherry picker, that's for sure. Tends to leave out all the relevant facts.

He doesn't understand what relevant even means. Anyone who can't write a complete sentence, makes more spelling errors than a 2nd grader, has the grammar of a 1st grader and can't figure out how to use the most basic of all the functions on the board.... Sorry, too much work for me. And THEN add in the "expand-a-post" on top of the rest of the gibberish? Sorry, it's like reading a 50 page essay written by a kindergartner.

[jimnyc]

I must be invisible. Or did I call you what you are?

Let's play. What specifically is a unconstitutional proposal by Rand Paul? Fuckwit. You don't like manning up to shit, do you?

Paul has stated he will basically do away with all of the NSA spying and all other related shit on day one - no congress, no courts, no one else - just gone on day one. Of course we both know that won't happen. BUT, one would think that his biggest supporter would at least see the comparisons between that, and Trump stating he wants to do something. One he sees as "unconstitutional", based on his own inability to read and comprehend. But Paul's IS NOT, and why? Well, because Revv says so, no need for courts or congress.

[revelarts]

Paul has stated he will basically do away with all of the NSA spying and all other related shit on day one - no congress, no courts, no one else - just gone on day one. Of course we both know that won't happen. BUT, one would think that his biggest supporter would at least see the comparisons between that, and Trump stating he wants to do something. One he sees as "unconstitutional", based on his own inability to read and comprehend. But Paul's IS NOT, and why? Well, because Revv says so, no need for courts or congress.

Jim, I really don't appreciate you not believing me when i tell you that I haven't been following much of any of the the candidates. I PMd you a while back about a personal situation that i'm still having. it's kept me away from a lot of politics that i usually am on top of. frankly i've read more on this board and what's linked from this board than i have any news. I haven't watch CNN, or FOX except for a few youtube links related to items from here. and the Planned Parenthood story I got news on from another site i follow.

So I honestly have not heard what Paul has said in months concerning the NSA or anything else. I haven't finished watching any debates just read bits and pieces of it.
call me a lair if that makes you feel better. but you're wrong.

I'd have to look up what he's said about the NSA. because YOU are the 1st to tell me.
if you want to point me to a link with exact quotes on what he said. I'll be happy to reply.
But please don't assume I'm on top of every candidates words this season, I'm not.

You started this tread on Trump. I watched the clips. I read some links, and based on my knowledge of how the Scotus works and the president's constitutional authority I've made my comments.

You know it's not my way to run or dodge.
I literally have not heard or read much about Paul or ANY other candidates in depth for the past few months.