Solely
Solely

Solely

About
About

About

Https
Https

Https

Should
Should

Should

With
With

With

Fitzgerald
Fitzgerald

Fitzgerald

Quickly
Quickly

Quickly

Doing It
Doing It

Doing It

Amount
Amount

Amount

What Youre Made Of
What Youre Made Of

What Youre Made Of

🔥 Popular | Latest

America, Asian, and Community: MESSAGE FROM THE FATHER OF MOLLIE TIBBETTS The person who is accused of taking Mollie's life is no more a reflection of the Hispanic community as white supremacists are of all white people. To suggest otherwise is a lie. Justice in my America is blind. This person will receive a fair trial, as it should be. If convicted, he will face the consequences society has set. Beyond that, he deserves no more attention. To the Hispanic community, my family stands with you and offers its heartfelt apology. That you've been beset by the circumstances of Mollie's death is wrong. We treasure the contribution you bring to the American tapestry in all its color and melody. And yes, we love your food. My stepdaughter, whom Mollie loved so dearly, is Latina. Her sons _ Mollie's cherished nephews and my grandchildren are Latino. That means I am Hispanic. I am African. I am Asian. I am European. My blood runs from every corner of the Earth because I am American As an American, I have one tenet: to respect every citizen of the world and actively engage in the ongoing pursuit to form a more perfect union. Given that, to knowingly foment discord among races is a disgrace to our flag. It incites fear in innocent communities and lends legitimacy to the darkest, most hate-filled corners of the American soul. It is the opposite of leadership. It is the opposite of humanity. It is heartless. It is despicable. It is shameful. https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/2018/09/0 1/mollie-tibbetts-father- common-decency-immigration-heartless-despicable-donald-trump-jr-column/ 1 I 631 3 1 002/ A Message From the Father of Mollie Tibbetts

A Message From the Father of Mollie Tibbetts

Arguing, College, and Joe Biden: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 urben911: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I have… opinions… on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ‘well he’s only ineligible to be ELECTED’ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying you’re allowed to be in a house because while they said ‘don’t come in this door’ you came in through the WINDOW. You can’t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations. You can call it “stupid shenanigans” all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. I’m certainly not in support of this idea, I’m just saying you can’t hand wave a legal argument because you’re pretty sure it meant something that’s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said “no former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstances”, but it doesn’t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference. I’m pretty sure from the wording of the amendment it would be perfectly legal. If they ran as biden/Obama that would be legal because Obama isn’t being elected as president. If something happened to Biden where the vp would have to take over then you could have Obama in the white house legally. At least that’s what I get from the wording of the constitution. THANK YOU.It really isn’t that complicated.

urben911: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of ...

Arguing, College, and Joe Biden: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 hst3000: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I have… opinions… on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ‘well he’s only ineligible to be ELECTED’ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying you’re allowed to be in a house because while they said ‘don’t come in this door’ you came in through the WINDOW. You can’t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations. You can call it “stupid shenanigans” all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. I’m certainly not in support of this idea, I’m just saying you can’t hand wave a legal argument because you’re pretty sure it meant something that’s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said “no former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstances”, but it doesn’t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference. Being elected is the default way to become president. I don’t doubt someone would argue it, but it’s a STUPID ARGUMENT. The rest of the argument in that article is ‘well there’s no law saying the parties can’t run a dog for election’ type of crap. “Being elected is the default way to become president” Yes but it’s not the only way. Teddy Roosevelt not initially get elected to the office, he became president when McKinley died. Whether or not it’s a stupid argument is beside the point. We’re talking about theoretical legality.

hst3000: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of...

Arguing, College, and Joe Biden: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I have… opinions… on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ‘well he’s only ineligible to be ELECTED’ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying you’re allowed to be in a house because while they said don’t come in this door’ you came in through the WINDOW. You can’t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations. You can call it “stupid shenanigans” all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. I’m certainly not in support of this idea, I’m just saying you can’t hand wave a legal argument because you’re pretty sure it meant something that’s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said “no former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstances”, but it doesn’t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference.

hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questi...

Community, Detroit, and Fucking: How a flawed criminal justice system put a pregnant Detroit activist behind bars by Tom Perkins April 02, 2018 at 10:37 AM comment <p><a href="http://lovelyardie.tumblr.com/post/173718002277/krungle-colionnoir-ra-who-is-pregnant" class="tumblr_blog">lovelyardie</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="http://krungle.tumblr.com/post/173692650832/colionnoir-ra-who-is-pregnant-sits-in" class="tumblr_blog">krungle</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="https://colionnoir.tumblr.com/post/173689971140/ra-who-is-pregnant-sits-in-prison-where-she" class="tumblr_blog">colionnoir</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>Ra — who is pregnant — sits in prison, where she faces the prospect of giving birth to her second child in June. According to her attorneys, she’s there because she brandished a registered firearm to defend herself, her mother, and her 2-year-old daughter from an attack by a woman who repeatedly tried hitting them with a car.<br/> ______<br/> At the sentencing, Michigan’s mandatory sentencing laws for crimes committed with a gun stripped the judge of any discretion. That eliminated consideration for the incident’s circumstances, Ra’s clean record, her community work, and other factors that should weigh into a sentence. Ra’s attorneys stress that they don’t blame the judge — they fault the Michigan Legislature, which passed the minimum sentence law in 1977.<br/> ______<br/> Beyond that, attorneys say that the jury appeared hurried to wrap up the case before a snowstorm hit, made its decision while unaware of the two-year mandatory prison term, and arrived at a contradictory verdict.<br/> _____</p> <p>And at her sentencing, Ra spoke of the role she believes race played in the jury’s decision.<br/> ______<br/> “The prosecutor convinced the jury and judge that I lacked fear and that’s not true,” Ra said. “I was so afraid, especially for my toddler and mother. I don’t believe they could imagine a black woman being scared — only mad.”<br/> ____<br/> Link to the full story is in my profile section or go here: <a href="https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2018/04/02/how-a-flawed-criminal-justice-system-put-a-pregnant-detroit-activist-behind-bars">https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2018/04/02/how-a-flawed-criminal-justice-system-put-a-pregnant-detroit-activist-behind-bars</a></p> </blockquote> <p>Let me get this straight. A liberal activist uses an unloaded gun that she kept in her car’s glove-box to back off another woman that is committing vehicular assault against her, her mother and her daughter. Yet because the other person gets to the cops first, Ra is automatically charged with the felony assault.</p> <p>Now she is yelling ‘racism’ in a city that had black mayors for forty years and a majority black city council for 50 years and presently has a black police chief. Yet she was charged and convicted under the laws these very liberal black people set into place and the lack of any mention of the jury make-up (and considering Detroit’s racial demographics of over 70% black) I seriously doubt the jury was loaded up with white people.</p> <p>But she condemns the NRA for being silent when she stored a gun in her car’s glove-box while a 2 yo played in the car showing a lack of common sense in gun ownership. But, no, it isn’t her poor gun handling/storing, it is the NRA is racist. But then the NRA didn’t defend me either when I defended myself in my own home against a mentally ill sibling who forced their way into my house and beat me with a pipe, and the reason the told me why is because I was not a card-carrying member.</p> <p style="">Seems to me this liberal activist got exactly what she had voted for.</p> <p>Stop yelling “racist!” and start voting conservative.<br/></p> </blockquote> <p>I honestly think when your sibling beat you with the pipe, they beat the only 2 of your fucking IQ points out of your piece of shit brain because you honestly tried to conflate being a young black woman exercising both her first amendment and second amendment rights with being a criminal and tried to justify her unlawful imprisonment. Lets not even mention how you willfully ignored how they are neglecting to provide her INNOCENT, UNBORN CHILD with proper prenatal care, especially since she is a high risk pregnancy. But i guess you really don’t give two shits about that, right? You have no idea who she voted for, but I guess you really never learned the difference between inferring based on your own dumbass biases and actually confirming your findings. So do us all a favor and go back to huffing some car exhaust, would ya?</p></blockquote>

lovelyardie: krungle: colionnoir: Ra — who is pregnant — sits in prison, where she faces the prospect of giving birth to her second child ...