>>HEADER VIA HERE<<

Views expressed in posts are respective of the post author. Comments on the site are moderated. Those comments are the views solely expressed by the commenter. Moderated comments that are allowed are not necessarily the views held by the blog owner or authors.

Thursday, November 16, 2023

Thirsty Thursday.. A Major Clean-Up of the Meme Inbox.. Here Ya Go... Share Away...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

 


















































































































 

 

15 comments:

  1. I don't think I will Scooter.
    Karens of both sexes can eat shit with that pointless safety uber alles.
    Comrade Xi will keep you safe, please face wall useless idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If #53 cites a SCOTUS decision from 1866, why does it refer to fifty states?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Uh oh, we've got one that can read!

      Delete
    2. Because you are reading something that only cites the SCOTUS decision, but was written long after. The second circled paragraph wasn't from the SCOTUS decision, it was from the article that cited it. Dumbass.

      Delete
    3. Hey! I was going to say that. Yeah, the first part may be from 1866, but the second part definitely is not.

      Delete
    4. Call me a dumbass for asking a reasonable question? I’ll bet you make a great spouse and parent,

      Delete
    5. Now we know who rides the special little blue school bus that serves the "special" students."

      Delete
    6. That was not at all what the decision was about. It was fallout from the suspension of habeas corpus. The ruling was that the military court lacked jurisdiction because he was not in the armed forces or a militia, and as this was in Indiana, the courts were still functioning during the war. Furthermore, that the state of war did not abrogate his right to a jury trial. He was released from prison and his case was sent to a grand jury for trial. The grand jury did not indict him. He later sued and won, if i remember right, 5 dollars plus court costs.....

      Delete
  3. Newport Joe is good.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nice as it would be to have a SCOTUS ruling stating that the constitution is not affected by any emergency, I've been looking at that ruling, and I'm not seeing that. Full disclosure, I can be standing in front of the can I want and not see it.
    What I don't see in the constitution is a sentence saying it's all up to whoever is in charge in case of emergency and it's my opinion that no emergency gives them the right to remove my rights.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Non-citizens and criminals do not have rights under this document"?
    Ouch.
    I can't wait for the government to pull you over for speeding, then plant evidence on you, then drag you away to be tortured to get a confession, then prevent you from ever being able to speak out about what happened to you.

    The constitution *acknowledges* our *God-given rights*. God is not limited to government-law-abiding Americans like you or I.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh dear Anonymous you mean like what they did to the January 6th folks and random asset forfeit they do right now?

      Wake up Anonymous, already the "God given rights " are subject to the whims of law enforcement.

      Prove me wrong, my tables over there.

      Michael

      Delete
  6. 109 for the win.

    95 Spuddle - see government employee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. #109-WOW! Just like our 2 Goldens, same colors even. The lighter one died on a Wednesday and we had the darker, new pup by Saturday afternoon. Their dialogue is perfect. Two bad we didn't have them at the same time-they would have been best buds. The hurt when they died was indescribable.

      Delete
  7. #5--no, the nose rings don't know who bombed Pearl Harbor. Neither do those wearing them, but the nose rings certainly don't.
    Grammar, what do it do?
    --Tennessee Budd

    ReplyDelete

Leave us a comment if you like...