BellGab.com Archive

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on November 07, 2017, 01:34:28 PM
You pull up into the parking lot and exhale softly.  After getting settled for the day you're going to send the orderlies up to his room to get him. 

You'll try to build on any progress you made the previous day, but overnight, while you were gone, setting the demands of the job aside in order to spend time with friends and family and get a good nights rest, he was up there, restrained and tied to the wall. 

He again spent his night plotting his resistance, and in the morning you must begin, again, back at square one.

Like Swishypants you also seem to be a want-to-be bad fantasy fiction writer.  You two should get together.

Quote from: Swishypants on November 07, 2017, 01:35:11 PM
And you JUST SAID 23 million live near the US border! The rest of them are toothless drunks hunting seal pelts and Newfies! That doesn't count!

No, the census data I quoted said 23 million Canadians ('almost 70%') live in 'urban areas.'

Quote from: Kidnostad3 on November 07, 2017, 01:27:10 PM
I am a documented Blue Nose and have surfaced through ice.  I have gone so far north that I’ve transitioned to going south without changing course.  Fuck off!

That's swishier than anything swishypants would say.   :

Quote from: Swishypants on November 07, 2017, 01:26:26 PM
No, it doesn't. Texas has 26 Million.

Canadian population: 36.29 million (2016)

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on November 07, 2017, 01:17:59 PM
Correct:  when one begins by trying to figure out how a disfavored person or group is in violation of certain limits - regardless of the facts of the matter and the actual rule - and why others one does favor who are actually committing crimes under those same provisions are not, this is the tangled mess one ends up with. 

At least I'm not trying to convince you not to kill yourself in order to become germ free.  That might become frustrating.

I never made any prior claim that as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton either was or was not subject to the Emoluments Clause.  The only people who I've said aren't subject to it here are elected members of Congress. 

This is a discussion on Hillary Clinton, the Office of the Secretary of State clearly is subject to the Emoluments Clause: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/nov/06/newt-gingrich/gingrich-hillary-clinton-broke-law-foreign-clinton/

and here is another commentary:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/09/23/is-the-emoluments-clause-a-problem-for-hillary-clinton/?utm_term=.a6930901ebf4

I have previously written here that Hillary Clinton certainly had a problem with realizing that even perceptions of conflicts of interest should be avoided.

Quote from: Swishypants on November 07, 2017, 01:23:12 PM
Canada has a smaller population than Texas. Do you REALLY think Canada is not just America's Norther Mineral Resources Storage Locker?

Canada has a larger population than Texas but a slightly smaller population than California.

Quote from: Kidnostad3 on November 07, 2017, 01:01:01 PM
Can anyone tell me why 95% of the Canadian population lives huddled up ass-to-nose on the U.S. border?  We’ve got to stop leaving out garbage cans uncovered.

It's actually 90%

"Canadian Demographics - Accessibility and Remoteness of Population. According to the 2011 Canadian Census, more than 23 million people, almost 70 percent of the population, live in urban areas. Ninety percent of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles of the U.S. border."

Have you been north of 100 miles of the U.S northern border?  (This is awkwardly worded because I'm referencing a Canadian television show called 'North of 60.')

There are some Canadians who are pushing for much larger yearly immigration so that Canada can get to a population of at least 100 million by the end of the century and they believe that a  lot more people could make a living in Yukon, Western Arctic (Northwest Territories) and Nunavut.  With global warming it might be possible relatively soon enough.  Of course, as a response to global warming, it wouldn't surprise me if you Americans invaded to take the part of Canada that is 100 miles north of the U.S northern border if not our entire country.

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on November 07, 2017, 12:26:27 PM
Hillary deleted it.

Still better than Trump.

Quote from: Jackstar on November 07, 2017, 11:55:43 AM
What difference does it make?

I was hoping it was a clip of her explaining why the Clinton Foundation isn't subject to the Emoluments Clause.

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on November 07, 2017, 11:35:41 AM
Confirmed Canadian!   

Canadian bacon is basically just a fatty ham with ground corn and pea meal smushed into it. 

I'm a vegetarian.

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on November 07, 2017, 02:21:40 AM

You really want to do this?

Your original post only mentioned ''Section 6'', which you can see in my post where I quoted you.  I had to guess what you meant, point that out, and unfortunately reversed the section and clause when I had to cite it for you.  You then went back and updated your post, but still didn't get it right either.

But the rest of the content of my post was correct.  Your attempts to confuse and dissemble have failed.  I still don't quite get why you think members of Congress are exempt from the foreign emoluments clause.  ''No person holding any office'' doesn't sound like just the president to me.  It they meant just the president, they would have said so.  If they meant just the president, it would have been in Article II.  That there are various other clauses and various other laws, covering various other issues is irrelevent.

Posting that some parts of the Constitution are ''clear as mud'' to you doesn't absolve your shoddy thinking, although it helps explain it.  Were you this resistent with your germaphobia treatments?  Worse?

1.Except your explanation here makes no sense because you had previously yourself posted  Section 6 Clause 2 here before I mentioned "Section 6."  So it was clear that you already knew that's what I was referring to.   I don't know why you are even attempting to lie about this now, other than you obviously 'think' it puts me in some bad light.  But, your own posts show you are sleazily lying about this.

2.Except as Section 6 Clause 2 makes clear the 'Office' (not the 'office') referred to in Section 9 Clause 8 is not referring to Congress.  If you are tying in some back door way to get me to state that the 'Office' does not refer to any elected person including the President (or the Vice President) I would personally agree that's possible and there does seem to be some current debate on that, except from what I've read on this from constitutional lawyers and from my readings of the Federalist Papers on this, it does seem clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended for the President to be subject to the Emoluments Clause. However Section 6 Clause 2 also makes it clear they did not mean to include the elected members of Congress as subject to the Emoluments Clause.

If you genuinely don't understand how Section 6 Clause 2 does that, that does not surprise me, because you are, indeed, a hopeless retard.  All you have to do though is see that the term the 'Office' is used in both Section 6 Clause 2 in stating that 'no person holding any Office  under the United States shall be a member of either House during his continuance in Office.  This second reference of Office is a reference to a person holding a position in the Executive Branch and so, as you had previously mentioned when you quoted this Clause here, refers to Separation of Powers.

Section 9 Clause 8 (The Emoluments Clause) then again refers to those holding any Office  If you believe that this 'Office' is different than the 'Office' mentioned in Section 6 Clause 2 then you have to concede that at least this section of the Constitution is poorly written.  My view, and the view of the Constitutional experts I've read, is that the Office referred to in both cases refers to the same Office.

I think I've explained this quite enough.  If you still genuinely can't figure it out, it's not my fault you're a hopeless retard.

Quote from: Jackstar on November 07, 2017, 12:37:17 AM

There's no sound to that. I was hoping for some insight.

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on November 06, 2017, 11:36:03 PM
Your ignorance has worn me down.  If you can't cite the Article, Section, and Clause, then I have to guess what the hell you're talking about.  Which is difficult when you don't really know either.

But I agree with you - you find a good deal of it is as clear as mud, and it shows.

I cited the Article, Section and Clause.   It's not my fault you don't even know your own nation's Constitution.

http://constitutionus.com/

here is another example, if you believe that first example is 'fake news' or whatever it is you mindlessly chant.
https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec6.html

Look at those, see which is described as 'Section' and then check the numbering and you'll see that you're the ignorant one, hopeless retard.

It's possible your 'brain' is filled with mud as well as rocks, but it doesn't really matter.

You get something wrong and you won't even admit it, but attempt to blame the other person.  You're completely pathetic, completely unethical and a brain-dead moron, and this is why I prefer to have nothing to do with you.

I'd appreciate it if others with sense around here would ignore you as I try to do, but I can't tell other people what to do.

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on November 06, 2017, 11:09:13 PM
First off, it's Article I, Section 2, Clause 6 - not ''Section 6''. 

''No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.''

This has to do with separation of powers, and makes members of Congress ineligible to hold any federal office during their term in Congress.  So, nothing to do with foreign source emoluments, no conflict, one doesn't affect the other.


The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act was passed into law prohibits bribbery, as you mention.  That doesn't conflict with, supercede, or create a version of the foreign emoluments clause for the Congress either. 

Simply because no one has been charged, or because it's difficult to prosecute, does not mean the foreign emoluments prohibition doesn't apply to the Congress.

Again, go back to the definition of emoluments:  Compensation for services or from employment or office.  Not bribery, not side jobs in the executive branch - it's in regards to being in the employ or receiving payment for services from a foreign government.  Perhaps the reason no one has been charged or tried on this is because no one does it so openly as to be caught, and it's easier to just take bribes. If you are saying it's perfectly fine for a member of Congress to take a side job with a foreign government, why don't any of them do so?  Why hire an agent in DC when some country could hire a Congressman as their agent instead?


Have you considered the reason Dershowitz hasn't mentioned the application of this to Congress is because no one is currently accusing them of anything, and he was there to talk about the accusations made against Trump?  Why would he bring up the Congress?

Again, big picture.  Try to take a step back and think about whether what you are saying makes sense

It's actually Section 6 Clause 2.  You can't even get your corrections correct, hopeless retard.  (There isn't even a 6th clause in Section 2, Article 1)

No, you're not correct.  Section 6 Clause 2 spells out that the reference to "Office" in the Emoluments Clause Section 9 Clause 8 (both of Article 1) was not referring to Congresspeople.  (Or 'makes it clear', since Section 6 naturally came before section 9)

At best, all you're capable of doing, hopeless retard, is mindlessly regurgitating cliches: "That refers to Separation of Powers, durr, durr, durrr."  Yes, but what powers were being separated?  Congresspeople from holding the "Office" referred to in Section 9 Clause 8 while they are also members of Congress.  Talk about being unable to see any picture, yet alone the big picture.

This is why there has never been any mention of members of Congress being subject to the Emoluments Clause.  (At least not since Alexander Hamilton.)

Quote from: 21st Century Man on November 06, 2017, 11:07:28 PM

Geeez Louise! You described yourself very well there and I can't add anything more.  Well-done!!! 

Glad I could please you.

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on November 06, 2017, 09:40:25 PM
Yes, the House and Senate each make their own rules that apply to their procedures, and for punishing and expelling members.  But they can't overrule the limits placed on them by the Constitution.

Back to Artilce I.  Yes, most of it applies to the Congress.  But not all of it applies only to them.  Section 1 creates the House and Senate.  Section 2 discusses certain issues surrounding the House, and Section 3 does the same for the Senate.  Sections 4-8 discuss eligiblity, manner of elections, compensation, legislative process, specific and general areas of responsibility,and so on. 

The final 2 Sections are a little different.  Section 9 spells out certain limits, but these are not limited to the Congress - since Congress is the legislative branch, they are listed here to ensure Congress passes no legislation that conflicts with these items, but they also apply to the executive branch the the extent they are relevent to it.  Confirming Article I applies beyond just the Congress, Section 10 spells out certain limits that apply to the states - specifically powers independent states would normally have, but have been delegated to the Congress and the federal government. 


So yes, the Emolument Clause in Section 9 applies to any (all) office holders.  Just as it says.  the opinions of various people over time don't really matter - the Supreme Court would have the last say, even though being a politial body they often rule incorrectly.

You're so funny when you go into 'teacher' mode, hopeless retard.  No, I'm sorry you are simply wrong on this.  We know that members of Congress aren't subject to the Emoluments Clause, because they're subject to a different laws,  one of which has been used at least once.  This is why nobody, not even your new hero Dershowitz, mentions the Emoluments Clause with respect to Congress.

Congressman charged with taking bribes around the world

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Nearly two years after federal agents reported finding $90,000 in a freezer in his Washington home, U.S. Rep. William Jefferson has been charged with a global campaign to solicit bribes, obstruct justice and engage in racketeering, Justice Department officials said Monday.

Jefferson is the first U.S. official ever charged under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, which prohibits corporate bribery.

The charges are based on 11 schemes in which Jefferson allegedly solicited bribes for himself and his family from government and business officials in the United States, Nigeria, Botswana, Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome e Principe, U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg said at an afternoon news conference.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/04/jefferson/

You can even search all over the internet yourself to see if this act or any predecessor was brought in because subjecting members of Congress to the Emoluments Clause was too difficult and you won't find anything. Article 1 Section 6 of the U.S Constitution makes it very clear that the Emoluments Clause was not referring to elected Congresspeople.

And it's not as if the Emoluments Clause was unheard of prior to the election of Trump:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2013/04/02/federal-employees-warned-to-watch-out-for-emoluments/?utm_term=.9f8d2a9cf2e0

If you weren't such a hopeless retard with an obsession at trying to show the world you aren't a hopeless retard you'd concede on this, just as you'd concede that practically everything you write here is brain-dead.

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on November 06, 2017, 09:27:24 PM
Who cares how many people worked for the government in 1890?  Seriously.  All I did was point out an irrelevent ''fact'' you cited was wrong.  Very clearly obviously wrong.  Which you've now agreed with.  All those Congress folks had secretaries and other staff, as did the civil servants.  We had a military, post office, federal judges and staff, on and on.  We had a certain number of ambassadors, and their staff.  60 federal employees was absurd.  The larger question is why that didn't occur to you when you wrote it.

Here's your problem.  You can't see the big picture, you don't think things through logically, and you have no sense of perspective.  You plow through tons of facts and information, but aren't able to separate what is important from what isn't, and are very susceptable to selection bias and false information. 

This is how you you developed an obsession with germs, and reached the point of being a danger to yourself and others - you've transferred what got you into trouble with that into the political arena.   

It's funny, you criticize me, but you can't even read straight.  I never mentioned 1890 in regards to the number of civil servants.  I twice wrote about at the time of the writing of the Constitution.  The post office is a good point, but that gets to whether we are discussing a direct government employee or somebody like a school teacher who works for the 'broader public sector.'  (Of course, a school teacher in the United States isn't supposed to be a federal employee, but that's another matter.)


Of course, teachers, I presume postal workers... were all full time employees (as were direct civil servants) so, the idea that they would work for the government part of the year and then go back to their farms or businesses as was expected of an elected politician doesn't really apply.  So, while it is true that some teachers likely also operated farms or other small businesses, the vast majority of them would not have been expected by anybody to violate the Emoluments Clause.

The entire U.S military (army) in 1789 consisted of 718 people. Again, I would expect these were full time year round employees.
http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Stats/US_Mil_Manpower_1789-1997.htm

This is the actual text from the book I was referring to "The Great Republic, A History of the American People"
"The inherited Federalist government establishment was minuscule by modern standards and was small even by 18th century European Standards.  In 1801, the headquarters of the War Department, for example, consisted of only the secretary, an accountant, fourteen clerks and two messengers.  The Attorney General did not even have a clerk."

Yes, there were some diplomats (again, a full time job) and other employees at the Foreign Affairs Department, and there was also the Treasury Department.

This was the initial Treasury Department: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be a Department of Treasury, in which shall be the following officers, namely: a Secretary of the Treasury, to be deemed head of the department; a Comptroller, an Auditor, a Treasurer, a Register, and an Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury, which assistant shall be appointed by the said Secretary.  Maybe it had a lot more accountants than the headquarters of the Department of War, but I doubt it had as many clerks. 

I don't think 60 direct civil servants is all that far off.
It seems the concept of the 'broader public sector' may be foreign to Americans, so I can see where the mix-up comes from.

Quote
I never wrote the U.S civil service had 60 employees in 1890, I wrote the text book covered the United States up to 1890 and I wrote that the entire Federal Government (I should have written Federal Civil Service) had something like 60 employees.  In my case that was just poor writing because I wrote right after "they would have expected to be career civil servants" i.e not elected politicians.  I also wrote that "Congress had several hundred members"  so, clearly I could not have been referring to elected Representatives.

Both members of the House elected by (some) of the public and members of the Senate elected by State Legislatures.

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on November 06, 2017, 07:28:50 PM
There's almost no one more irrationally agenda driven than you on this board. How about that?

Needs some work, but it's a start.

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on November 06, 2017, 07:19:45 PM
Sorry, there are just to many mental patients to keep that promise, especially in Canada. 

Couldn't you at least reserve a separate insulting name just for me?

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on November 06, 2017, 07:11:59 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
fuckin faggot right here!

WTF?  You're insulting someone else now?  I thought you said I was the only person on this continent you would insult.  You don't make a guy feel very special.

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on November 06, 2017, 06:38:58 PM

Well, as posted above here is the Foreign Emolument Clause again:

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:

''No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.''


What I'm reading is ''NO PERSON HOLDING ANY OFFICE'', which I've also bolded for you.  Can you please show me where it says this clause is limited to the President.  Or where it says the Congress is exempt? 

I would have thought that if foreign emoluments were limited to the President, this clause it would have been included under Article II - the article that outlines the president's powers and limits.

As far as the US having 60 employees in 1890, there have always been 435 House members, and in 1890 there were 43 states so there's 86 Senators right there.  I don't think you're doing the math right.

Given that the Emoluments Clause is in Article I, it seems it should only apply to Congress and its employees, but this is not how it has been interpreted, as it has been interpreted to only apply to the Executive, which is clear since Congress makes its own rules to regulate itself.

As I've frequently stated, for all of the veneration of the Constitution a good deal of it is as clear as mud and this is another example.  The Emoluments Clause is written in the section that regulates the Legislature, yet the Constitution itself makes it clear that they were not referring to the legislators themselves but to those holding unelected Civil Office.  Maybe they just meant civil servants who work for Congress but that's not what they state in the Federalist Papers and that's not how it's been interpreted.

In this regard the Emoluments Clause needs to be read with Section six Clause two: 2: No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.



Scope. However, the text of the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause is not limited to American ambassadors or even to American diplomatic personnel. Instead, the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause applies to Offices of Profit or Trust under the United States: a substantially wider category. It is undisputed that this category applies to all officials holding appointed positions in the Judicial and Executive Branches of the national government.

What about the Legislative Branch? In 1792, the Senate asked Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton to compile a list of all persons holding Offices . . . under the United States and their salaries. Hamilton’s 1793 response included nonelected officials in each branch, including the Legislative Branch.

The question whether this category, and therefore the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause, reaches any or all federal elected positionsâ€"i.e., Representative, Senator, Vice President, President, and presidential electorâ€"poses a difficult interpretive challenge. For example, Hamilton’s list did not include members of Congress or any other elected state or federal positions. Likewise, George Washington, while President, accepted and kept two diplomatic gifts, but he never asked for or received congressional consent. However, subsequent presidents, such as Andrew Jackson, in similar circumstances, sought congressional consent. Whose practice should we rely on?

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretations/the-foreign-emoluments-clause-article-i-section-9-clause-8

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never wrote the U.S civil service had 60 employees in 1890, I wrote the text book covered the United States up to 1890 and I wrote that the entire Federal Government (I should have written Federal Civil Service) had something like 60 employees.  In my case that was just poor writing because I wrote right after "they would have expected to be career civil servants" i.e not elected politicians.  I also wrote that "Congress had several hundred members"  so, clearly I could not have been referring to elected Representatives.

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on November 06, 2017, 06:20:49 PM
Hahaha

Care to comment on claiming to be an expert on the Emoluments Clause when you incorrectly 'thought' that it applied to Congress, sleazebag liar hopeless retard.

There is no way you could have made a simple mistake on that, because your entire argument rested on the idea that The Framers of the Constitution would not have imposed restrictions on several hundred part time legislators selling their products into foreign markets.  If the only politicians effected by the Emoluments Clause were the President and the Vice President (as is, in fact, the case) there is no reason to believe that the Framers would not have written the clause to prevent two individuals who held the highest offices from having foreign dealings. 

1.It's possible George Washington was in violation of the emoluments clause.  There are no records of who he sold to.  Washington also had a number of shady real estate dealings. 
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/11/trumps-defense-of-taking-foreign-money-is-historically-illiterate-215244

2.Foreign diplomats have been staying at Trump's hotels, and some reported they were pressured to do so, though they don't state who pressured them:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/2016/11/18/9da9c572-ad18-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html?utm_term=.d3670f042b4f

3.Trump himself is aware that profiting from this sort of pressure is illegal, or at least he was, as he lied that he would turn over the profits:
Just before taking office, President Donald Trump promised to donate all profits earned from foreign governments back to the U.S. Treasury.

But MSNBC has learned the Trump Organization is not tracking all possible payments it receives from foreign governments, according to new admissions by Trump representatives. By failing to track foreign payments it receives, the company will be hard-pressed to meet Trump’s pledge to donate foreign profits and could even increase its legal exposure.


Unfortunately I gave too much of the game away when I mentioned 'executive' in my last post.  Because I didn't want to have to go through your idiotic rantings I was hoping you'd make the same mistake I noticed you made earlier..  Fortunately, it only took me a few minutes to find.   Despite what you wrote in your last post, you had previously incorrectly claimed that the Emoluments Clause applies to Congress as well as the Executive. 

So, George Washington may or may not have been in violation of the emoluments clause, but there is no reason to believe that the Framers of the Constitution would not have written a provision that would impact two non professional diplomats or civil servants every four years (The President and the Vice President.)  Unfortunately, I can't find my History text book of the United States up to 1890 right now, but the entire Federal Government initially consisted of something like 60 employees, most of whom, of course, would have been professionals and not farmers or business owners, and, other than diplomats, they would have expected to be career civil servants.  There were only the three federal departments initially: Foreign Affairs, War and Treasury, even the Attorney General was just a (very small) office and not a Department.

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on November 05, 2017, 09:27:36 AM
Oh, right, the Emoluments Clause.  Because the Framers of the Constitution decided to prevent citizen legislators and a president from continuing to operate their farms and businesses.  Those were to be shut down during their time in office.  What the Framers were really agling for was an elite group to run the government, as permanent politicians.  Thanks for the reminder.

So, again, it's pretty clear you were claiming expertise on the Emoluments Clause previously when in fact, you didn't even know who it applied to.

And yet you think you deserve replies from me when you ask me a question?  Not only are you a hopeless retard and a mindless Trump cultist, you're also a completely unethical sleazebag liar.

Quote from: 136 or 142 on November 06, 2017, 05:01:02 AM
As usual, everything you wrote here is wrong, hopeless retard.  It's amusing you think you're both intelligent and knowledgeable when you're actually brain-dead.

If you want to discuss this further, you can take it up with the same thing you have in your head: a rock.

"Everything is wrong" is an overstatement, I noticed I misinterpreted what the hopeless retard meant in this case by 'citizen government.'  However, the hopeless retard is still incorrect as should be readily apparent to anybody who actually knows anything about the Emoluments Clause and the beginnings of the U.S Presidential Executive.

Quote from: Kidnostad3 on November 06, 2017, 05:36:02 AM
It must be a sign of the times that all the lefties posting herein are humorless, mean-spirited depressives.  Cheer up, it’s always darkest just before everything really turns to shit.   

Dealing with all the stupidity from the righties here would harden even much better people than me.

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on November 06, 2017, 05:17:58 AM
You've heard this before?  You may want to take it to heart.

No, your brain-dead attempt at humor is unoriginal. All you've done is assemble a collection of stupid conservative cliches, or since you're a hopeless retard, maybe you cut and pasted that from a conservative website (or, more likely, retyped it one letter at a time).  If so, no doubt it was originally posted by another mindless Republican cultist who mistakenly thought, as you clearly do, that he was clever.

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on November 06, 2017, 05:16:24 AM
Libtards are frightened at the idea of personal freedom, and have a strong need for a government that takes their money, spends it for them and tells them what to do.  Which is fine, except they demand that for the rest of us as well.  So they spend their time self selecting information that confirms their biases, and absolutely refuse to think for themselves.

I'm certain when 139 was released from the asylum, at first he was happy and felt free, but quickly became frightened and longed for the security of knowing he was monitored, provided for, and having his activity determined by others.

Unoriginal.

Quote from: 21st Century Man on November 06, 2017, 05:04:31 AM
I've listened to Dershowitz on the very subject so don't you dare tell me what I have or haven't read or watched.  Go back to fucking school.  I'm not engaging with you any further today.

Ohhh, aren't you OUTRAGED! You're such a loser snowflake. 

I'll tell you what I know to be true, and if you don't like it, you can leave here.

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on November 06, 2017, 04:59:10 AM
Didn't this start with someone posting that Dershowitz says Trump isn't violating the emolunts clause, and these other lawyers are saying he is?

Yes, they are bush league if their esteemed opinion is no one from the private sector should run for office unless they close down their businesses.  That isn't what the emolents clause is about, and any unbiased reading will tell you that.  Any contemplateion of whether the Framers intended for a citizen government to require that would tell you that.

Go back to overanalyzing germs.

As usual, everything you wrote here is wrong, hopeless retard.  It's amusing you think you're both intelligent and knowledgeable when you're actually brain-dead.

If you want to discuss this further, you can take it up with the same thing you have in your head: a rock.