ADVERTISEMENT

Unbelievable

F*ck off, DANC. I responded directly to your question, don't get dismissive like you are too good to read answers to questions you post. I'm out.
As usual, you were caught in a lie and now you're leaving in a huff. You never cited the actual law in this thread and I wasted 10 minutes going back over it to make sure.

Fvck off youself.
 
As usual, you were caught in a lie and now you're leaving in a huff. You never cited the actual law in this thread and I wasted 10 minutes going back over it to make sure.

Fvck off youself.
Oh, and I'm not leaving in a huff. I'm leaving this conversation because if I keep talking to you, I'm going to ban a paying member, and then you'll have to wait to beg stoll to let you back in. Let's see if he overturns my banning decisions the way I don't overturn his many banning decisions.
 
As usual, you were caught in a lie and now you're leaving in a huff. You never cited the actual law in this thread and I wasted 10 minutes going back over it to make sure.

Fvck off youself.

Post #81 in this thread.

 
I literally cited the US code for you. Read the f*cking thread you stupid f*cking idiot.

I see 30 days - I don't see 90, dumb mothervcker.

EDIT: I do see 90 days, but it's regarding SYSTEMIC removal. This process was not systemic, dumbass.

"
(A)
A State shall complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election for Federal office, any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters.
 
You're right. They could be looking for a chance at the million bucks he's giving away per day. He doesn't have a condition that they be Republicans or Democrats. By the way, that seems like a barely legal if not illegal scheme he's doing.

What do you think would make it illegal? And what does “barely legal” mean (in this context, Aloha…in this context)?
 
I said I didn't see it. So sorry. But you and Mark are still wrong about the 90 days.
The judge must be too then, since that is the basis for his ruling. You and COH should arrange for Trump to appoint you to the bench.
 
The judge must be too then, since that is the basis for his ruling. You and COH should arrange for Trump to appoint you to the bench.
The world would be a far better place.

We're talking one judge, Mark. There is a problem when a judge - not a court - can stop the state from performing its legal duties. Especially where there is a process to correct any errors.
 
As usual, you were caught in a lie and now you're leaving in a huff. You never cited the actual law in this thread and I wasted 10 minutes going back over it to make sure.

Fvck off youself.
Soon my friend. It won't matter what these crazy Marxists believe much longer. We're winning so big.


 
  • Love
Reactions: DANC

I see 30 days - I don't see 90, dumb mothervcker.

EDIT: I do see 90 days, but it's regarding SYSTEMIC removal. This process was not systemic, dumbass.

"
(A)
A State shall complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election for Federal office, any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters.

What is missing for it to be systemic? A quick look at definitions and several say it is "according to a plan". Here are two at the top of my search:

done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical.

Systematic describes something that is planned out and careful. In your systematic search for your mother's car keys, you start in one room, looking everywhere from bottom to top before moving to the next room. Use the adjective systematic to describe things that are orderly and efficient.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT