Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Recent Profile Visitors

2,463 profile views

rmgill's Achievements

Hierophant Lord

Hierophant Lord (3/3)



  1. Put the goal posts back. It was not how you voted (which would be secret ANYHOW), but 'support'. Which is easily understood to be public support. Say you're an oil company executive, but you support Biden. You say so in public appearances. Biden wants to drive your business out of business. Does your public support for Biden indicate a loss of direction for the objectives of your company and it's share holders? I'd say it does. Because at the large scale PUBLIC level, as a CEO campaigning or showing public support, you are doing so as the CEO and not as a private employee. Heres a clue. I could not, as an employee of CNN/Turner, publicly give support or any indication that I WAS doing X or Y as an employee of CNN. Our then Technical VP who ran the web division was in a FULL page ad, that had to go through legal and a bunch of other folks for us to do that. We were gettng great services from Akamai and that was who the ad was for. So, no, a CEO, giving public support as a CEO is cleraly acting in his/her capacity as CEO and not private citizen. For my current employer it went further, I had to be very clear that my current work and hobbies, the 501(c)(3) WWII group I work with WOULD not have any connection to my current employer's area of work. Also, did you bloody well miss the left going through donations and demanding that people be fired for merely giving MONEY to Trump? Because I get what the differences are and where the nuances lie. And what constitutionality actually is. You argue as if this hasn't all been going on and anyone who votes for Trump hasn't been getting heat or being fired. Also, as to constitutionality, what the hell do you think the focus of Citizens v FEC was about? I really don't think you understand anything of this constitutionality issue or where the water line is let alone where it is or where it's fallen or risen to in the past. I made no such assertion. I noted that, and it was expanded above, that people speaking for a company have a duty to that company and doing so in opposition might indicate that that CEO might have an issue. Again, remember as CEO you're speaking, if publicly, for that company in your public statements. That's part of being CEO. You think I could have walked around the CNN DC Bureau with a Trump 2020 hat on? I'd have been side lined for promotions or any pay even worse. You forget, I've worked in one of these companies. Where the hell do you work?
  2. You are aware that the federal government does precisely that at current right? What do you think Title 52 is? There have been legal cases over this and the federal government has been, at the executive level, been sticking it's nose into state elections for decades. How you assert that it's NOT the case and then accuse me of shit posting is absurd. Again my point is that in the case of one area of law, say the 1st amendment, we have CLEAR interpretation as to what the law is and how and what sort of speech controls are allowed and what are not. Those have many cases on the books and it's quite clear. The degree with which the VP can, when he is counting the EC ballots, discard a set or not is clearly uncharted territory. You asserted that is has never happened. I provided you with a clear example for when it HAS happened. You ignore that. Explain the legal basis for excluding Tennesee and Louisiana's EC ballots in 1864 and the process. Demonstrate the positive that you asserted didn't and could not happen. Its a question on a area that's arguably a little nebulous vs an area where we have case law that's as clear as crystal but the DNC/feds still ignores the case law.
  3. No, but that's a hyperbolic point. Is the VP meant to certify votes and effect a final count? How was it done in 1864 when two states' votes were discarded? Was there a legal provision for this or was it just done? If you're going to demand a positive, you have to likewise also show a negative.
  4. You can pay benefits on going. https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get OR you can pay the people you already pay for law enfrocement plus a few extra to process and deport illegal immigrants.
  5. What democracy are you defending again? With your platoons of infantry in soft caps? The UK didn't even defend democracy for it's own 7.5 million citizens in Hong Kong. Do go on. Naah. We'd bring our own refrigerators. Or Ice. See, we'd put in more electric power. Because we'd be using more than just solar and wind. And we'd tell the local council to get stuffed. Sorry. It's a High Humber. Not a horse.
  6. So is Earth Day. Despite the clear pagan implications if you know ANYTHING about pagan concepts. Schools are DRIPPING in earth day materials. We're also in the middle of Pride Month. Is that not a religious celebration? It has the hallmarks of it.
  7. Tunisia probably. Operation Torch. Kinda more North West Africa.
  8. Discrimination is discrimination. It SHOULD BE a federal case. It will likely be a LOT of civil cases.
  9. There was a large number of folks in the UK who had deserted. It was apparently very bad in 1944. https://www.amazon.com/Underworld-War-Deserters-Racketeers-Civilians/dp/0719557321
  10. Umm. Hang on that the US Constitution. Acts of congress don't change the constitution. What do you mean by EC Act? Do you mean the Electoral Count Act of 1887? Well, EC votes from Tennesee and Louisiana were rejected in 1864. They had been recaptured and had elections for the presidency but weren't allowed to be counted. Was that then insane? They also have laws for how VOTES are tallied and for how voters are registered. Now, say a state has a law for how electors are picked, but the state violates it's own laws and does them differently. Could the VP reject that state's suite of electors on that basis during the count? Does the VP's count of the elector's ballots merely live up to a basic counting with no approval or rejection of same?
  11. Bear in mind it's ALWAYS been the free men who make up the militia. This goes back to the British Yeomanry as well with similar laws in England centuries ago. There's been numerous examples of the Miltiai clause and the requirements. The key things are: The militia is made up of citizens. The militia own their own firearms. The extent of the powers of government over the Militia was organizing the militia and establishing how they should be armed, ie setting minimum standards for equipment. The lefts argument that the Militia is the National Guard is very curious because they're arguing that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right of the government to arm its own agents as a guarantee of the freedom of the nation. A very odd inversion given the context for when and why the 2nd amendment was written.
  12. Skywalkre, I really would like to see an answer to that. If hiring and firing based on race is illegal under federal law, where's the DOJ on these incidents?
  13. The ACLU has pushed it so far so as to almost be manifest that they want freedom FROM religion rather than freedom OF religion.
  • Create New...