crazy feminist arrested


#1

Some blue language. She is so special

girl gets arrested after claiming she’s a free inhabitant (whatever that is) ** Perhaps she is an alien from space **:smack:


#2

If she was black, the Justice Brothers (Al & Jesse) would come to her rescue.


#3

According to her, she’s a free inhabitant according to the Articles of Confederation. Wasn’t that pre Constitution or is it still used in court?


#4

I commend that cop for his infinite patience with this idiot.


#5

My question is: Who’s teaching these morons that crap??? You can bet she didn’t come up with this nonsense on her own.


#6

I would not be surprised if schools are teaching kids they are citizens of the world and not accountable to laws here. We have judges telling us that international law should take precedence over U.S. law.


#7

Yes that is pre-constitution and no I would think it has no bearing as to current law. A real lawyer may be able to tell us. ** A real lawyer **not a constitutional lawyer like obama.


#8

My question is: is she a Trump supporter?


#9

More likely she’s a Bush supporter…or a Christie gal, if not a Hillary supporter (which is much the same thing.)


#10

Naw, she’s a Trumper. Bat-spit, crack-pot crazy.


#11

[quote=“Jazzhead, post:10, topic:47538”]
Naw, she’s a Trumper. Bat-spit, crack-pot crazy.
[/quote]So, it is OK for you to call people crazy when they act against your liberal garbage, but a Conservative calls you insane, and you get offended. TLR (Typical Liberal Reaction).
Hypocrisy rears its ugly head, again.


#12

Did you watch the video? You deny she’s bat-spit crazy? :grin:


#13

Nope. But that is not the issue. You attributed her stupidity to being a Trump supporter, when there is zero evidence if she even has an affiliation. Typical Liberal reaction. If you think someone is crazy, they MUST support someone you don’t. Her feminism probably disqualifies her supporting someone like Trump. His record with women, ain’t that great. But when you favor tried and true failure policies for limiting abortions, you fit the textbook description of Insanity i.e. trying the same thing over and over, expecting different results.
The Question I ask, is WHO is really the crazy one.


#14

I have no idea whether she’s a Trump supporter, Tiny. It’s merely an educated guess based on her crack-pot anger. You don’t do humor very well, do you?


#15

No hyprocisy. You call me stuff all the time, and I don’t get offended. But when Bluto was a newbie, he whined and asked me to stop bothering him. Since then, I’ve obliged his request. But he still thinks he can come after me. Note that I’m not fighting back - because I’m keeping my word to him. But I’ll state the obvious - he lacks honor.


#16

Wrong (as usual.) The person who “lacks honor” here is the claimed attorney who doesn’t seem to know what the U.S. Constitution (the basic law of the land) actually SAYS…doesn’t seem able to read it and denies what it says because a few unelected political appointees don’t either and render goofy “opinions” with the putative force of law.


#17

I do if it is funny. You and I both know that was no attempt at humor.


#18

Only in wacky California…


#19

The principle that the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution and that its rulings carry the force of law has been established for almost two centuries. I understand that your position is that Dave and Dave alone can discern the Constitution’s meaning. But the fact I disagree with this position, and even believe it is ferschlugginer, doesn’t mean that I “lack honor”. I do, however, lack respect for those can’t address differences with anything other than name-calling.


#20

So, because John Marshal, an unelected political appointee, at the turn of the 19th Century, did an end run around the Constitution and claimed for the SCOTUS power that it was NOT given by the Constitution, that trumps the Constitution itself? Leave it to a relatively recent law-school graduate to come to that idiotic conclusion. Now we have 9 such political appointees–only two or three of which seem to have actually READ the Constitution, rendering moronic “opinions” that are tacitly CONTRARY to the intent of those who wrote, read and voted on the Constitution, Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments. The whole concept of ANY such court being reluctant to CORRECT the errors of past courts because of “precedent” SHOULD be anathema to any legal scholar.