Will Joe Biden And His Radicals Ignite A Civil War?

[dmallord]

Apparently someone prefers to believe the progressive narrative about SB4 instead of actually reading the law.

Because if you had read it, you'd know where you fell off the cliff.

Today, the courts put the SB4 Texas law on hold again. Why?

To help prevent the justice system from falling off a cliff, I suppose. If a court finds it insufficiently stated, understood, or ineffectively implemented, then who am I to believe he/she is following some progressive narrative? They are upholding their oath to weigh things objectively.

The info was reviewed on CNN.

The court questioned the state's solicitor's legal experts about the bill and how it would be implemented. The response to the court's questions came down to: "I don't know." This was the answer to several elements of judicial hypothetical questioning. Without answers, the judge again halted the implementation of the law.

Today, television news interviews of several Texas county sheriffs found them confused on how to carry out the law and also questioning why it was not left up to the border patrol units to fulfill under the current laws. Each sheriff pointed out the same things I did, e.g., stopping someone based on their skin color to check an ID. One, some San Antonio sheriff said the law didn't provide any resources to handle those who would be arrested and SB4 lacked enough specificity to prevent legal counter-actions or claims if legal suits were filed. [Same comments as mine.]

Several cities, including Austin, said they would not enforce SB4. Why? Perhaps Texas cities can electively choose to follow or not follow a governor's politicized agenda. Maybe they are the progressives.

The impression left on me from the interviews with the sheriffs indicated that the law was a political stunt that jumped the gun without putting forth the mechanisms necessary to enforce it.

Perhaps the governor fits that old Texas saying: 'All hat and no cattle.'

 

[Rightguide]

Today, the courts put the SB4 Texas law on hold again. Why?

To help prevent the justice system from falling off a cliff, I suppose. If a court finds it insufficiently stated, understood, or ineffectively implemented, then who am I to believe he/she is following some progressive narrative? They are upholding their oath to weigh things objectively.

The info was reviewed on CNN.

The court questioned the state's solicitor's legal experts about the bill and how it would be implemented. The response to the court's questions came down to: "I don't know." This was the answer to several elements of judicial hypothetical questioning. Without answers, the judge again halted the implementation of the law.

Today, television news interviews of several Texas county sheriffs found them confused on how to carry out the law and also questioning why it was not left up to the border patrol units to fulfill under the current laws. Each sheriff pointed out the same things I did, e.g., stopping someone based on their skin color to check an ID. One, some San Antonio sheriff said the law didn't provide any resources to handle those who would be arrested and SB4 lacked enough specificity to prevent legal counter-actions or claims if legal suits were filed. [Same comments as mine.]

Several cities, including Austin, said they would not enforce SB4. Why? Perhaps Texas cities can electively choose to follow or not follow a governor's politicized agenda. Maybe they are the progressives.

The impression left on me from the interviews with the sheriffs indicated that the law was a political stunt that jumped the gun without putting forth the mechanisms necessary to enforce it.

Perhaps the governor fits that old Texas saying: 'All hat and no cattle.'

If it is found to be lawful it will be a state law that Austin and everyone else will have to enforce whether they want to or not. If they don't their officials will be subject to removal by the state AG or the Governor.

 

[Lazaran]

Today, the courts put the SB4 Texas law on hold again. Why?

To help prevent the justice system from falling off a cliff, I suppose. If a court finds it insufficiently stated, understood, or ineffectively implemented, then who am I to believe he/she is following some progressive narrative? They are upholding their oath to weigh things objectively.

The info was reviewed on CNN.

The court questioned the state's solicitor's legal experts about the bill and how it would be implemented. The response to the court's questions came down to: "I don't know." This was the answer to several elements of judicial hypothetical questioning. Without answers, the judge again halted the implementation of the law.

Today, television news interviews of several Texas county sheriffs found them confused on how to carry out the law and also questioning why it was not left up to the border patrol units to fulfill under the current laws. Each sheriff pointed out the same things I did, e.g., stopping someone based on their skin color to check an ID. One, some San Antonio sheriff said the law didn't provide any resources to handle those who would be arrested and SB4 lacked enough specificity to prevent legal counter-actions or claims if legal suits were filed. [Same comments as mine.]

Several cities, including Austin, said they would not enforce SB4. Why? Perhaps Texas cities can electively choose to follow or not follow a governor's politicized agenda. Maybe they are the progressives.

The impression left on me from the interviews with the sheriffs indicated that the law was a political stunt that jumped the gun without putting forth the mechanisms necessary to enforce it.

Perhaps the governor fits that old Texas saying: 'All hat and no cattle.'

Not to mention, Mexico has already said flat out that they wouldn’t allow Texas to deport anyone back into Mexico:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/mexico-s...-accept-repatriations-state-scotus-ruling.amp



Houston, we have a problem…

 

[dmallord]

If it is found to be lawful it will be a state law that Austin and everyone else will have to enforce whether they want to or not. If they don't their officials will be subject to removal by the state AG or the Governor.

Ever heard of selective enforcement or passive resistance?

 

[Rightguide]

Ever heard of selective enforcement or passive resistance?

Selective enforcement is what Communists, Nazis, and Democrats do and are doing to Trump people.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Selective enforcement is what Communists, Nazis, and Democrats do and are doing to Trump people.

Yes, all of Trump's staff who are in jail and those who plead guilty to an insurrection are victims.

Jesus
Fucking
Christ

 

[Rightguide]

Yes, all of Trump's staff who are in jail and those who plead guilty to an insurrection are victims.

Jesus
Fucking
Christ

Speaking of Communists, Nazis, and Democrats.

 

[Ciceri]

Radicals?!! Are you joking? Radicals are the sort of deplorables who storm the Capitol and smear shit on the walls. Book banners, science deniers, christo fascists, mass shooters… that’s the Radicals. Get your facts straight

 

[Lazaran]

Right wing fascist traitor says what???



"Right"guide

 

[Rightguide]

Radicals?!! Are you joking? Radicals are the sort of deplorables who storm the Capitol and smear shit on the walls. Book banners, science deniers, christo fascists, mass shooters… that’s the Radicals. Get your facts straight

In 1954 leftwing radicals stormed the House of Representatives and shot up the place and wounded five Congressmen. In the 1970s a Communist group set off a bomb in the Senate restroom. Neither group was waving American flags.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

In 1954 leftwing radicals stormed the House of Representatives and shot up the place and wounded five Congressmen. In the 1970s a Communist group set off a bomb in the Senate restroom.

You missed the incident from 1915, and the one from 1983.

Neither group was waving American flags.

Why should there be,with the exception of Weather Underground they weren't Americans.....

For a Boomer, you sure don't know your history...Millennial's and GenXers know all that stuff off the top of their heads....

 

[DeluxAuto]

Speaking of Communists, Nazis, and Democrats.

Which one am I?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Which one am I?

The intelligent one....

 

[DeluxAuto]

The intelligent one....

To be fair, a mothball has Reichguide beat.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

To be fair, a mothball has Reichguide beat.

He thinks he's smart though....

 

[DeluxAuto]

He thinks he's smart though....

That's the craziest part about people like him. No matter how much their proven wrong and their perpetuated lies are shoved in their faces, they think they are informed and intelligent.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

That's the craziest part about people like him. No matter how much their proven wrong and their perpetuated lies are shoved in their faces, they think they are informed and intelligent.

Yep, the "stupid" runs strong in them...

 

[LLCox]

Which leftist are calling for a civil war?

None

 

[DeluxAuto]

Ten million third-world criminals and foreign agents he's infiltrating over the border.

We just have to fuck up the internet access and the grid on red states. No penis substitutes required.

 

[Ciceri]

None

The foreign PsyOp has these Christo-fascists thinking we should have a civil war. Our adversaries know how gullible and easily manipulated these evangelicals are. A cult is much easier to manipulate and therefore essential for a conflict from within our own borders.

 

[Rightguide]

None

Except DEMS/PROGRESSIVES/ANTIFA/BLM/NEVER TRUMPERS have all endorsed or engaged revolution in the US at one time or another.

 

[LLCox]

Except DEMS/PROGRESSIVES/ANTIFA/BLM/NEVER TRUMPERS have all endorsed or engaged revolution in the US at one time or another.

Not today, son.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Except DEMS/PROGRESSIVES/ANTIFA/BLM/NEVER TRUMPERS have all endorsed or engaged revolution in the US at one time or another.

So who's in jail for it? I can list about 700 or so Trump supporters in jail, surely you can beat my paltry number...come on I dare you....double dare!!

 

[PaxNurgle]

The foreign PsyOp has these Christo-fascists thinking we should have a civil war. Our adversaries know how gullible and easily manipulated these evangelicals are. A cult is much easier to manipulate and therefore essential for a conflict from within our own borders.

True, and I will add that it is especially disturbing to see one of our presidential candidates openly court both the evangelical and conservative Christians, and simultaneously court foreign dictators whose interests are often NOT friendly toward the U.S. And whose interests may actually lie in WEAKENING the U.S.

NO candidate for office in the U.S. should have anything but contempt for and wariness of Victor Orban, for example, nor should they be openly praising Vladimir Putin. But one candidate has reached out to Orban and even invited him to speak at our political rallies, and has praised Putin's governing style repeatedly. This should be quite alarming, even to evangalical Christians.

And NO, Rightguide, and Hisarpy/Icanhelp guy- I am NOT talking about Biden here.

 

[Ciceri]

Except DEMS/PROGRESSIVES/ANTIFA/BLM/NEVER TRUMPERS have all endorsed or engaged revolution in the US at one time or another.

Dems are pro-democracy and the GOP is not. That’s all