GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged
Member

Once again Tucker Carlson asks the question "How did 9/11 actually happen?" Thank you Tucker Carlson. You are now officially a 9/11 Truther. No apology needed. Please have other well respected 9/11 Truthers on your show. One isn't required to say "The government did it!" to be a 9/11 Truther. You just have to seriously question the official narrative. You have to be looking for the truth. It's in the name "Truther." You mentioned Jeffrey Epstein and how he got his millions and how did he die. Have Whitney Webb on your show please to discuss One Nation Under Blackmail. And for everyone that wrongly blamed Truther's for dragging down Ron Paul, get serious! Look at what the MSM is trying to do with RFK Jr. Look at what the DNC did to Bernie Sanders. Look at how Tulsi Gabbard was called a "Russian asset." Trump got past the gauntlet in part because Hillary Clinton wanted him to get through since she thought he was the easiest to beat. She had no idea that Trump would use Bill Clinton's serial woman abuse against her, and in fact Trump didn't go there in the firs debate but he put winning over his long standing friendship with the Clintons in the second debate. Lastly, don't be afraid to bite the hand that currently frees you. Elon "Imma put a chip in your brain" Musk can't be trusted. I wish you'd gone to a really free platform like https://Hive.io or https://odysee.com/. Yeah....small gripe I know. But part of me wonders if part of the reason Musk bought Twitter was to actually SAVE Twitter from itself and stop TWIXIT. (Twitter Exit). Yeah some leftists temporarily jumped ship for https://mastodon.social/ (another actually free platform that Trump ripped off to create truth.social), but they're back (unfortunately). Look at how Jack Doresy has endorsed RFK Jr. Seems he wasn't really on board with the way Twitter's censorship was killing the platform he created and loved. Anyhow, that's a digression. Look forward to what comes of the new show.

Obviously not a hot enough fire. Or didn't leave it in long enough.

It is actual, factual, just like election results!

The good old days when somebody was criticized for being endorsed by somebody that... Now LGBTQLMNOP rules.

Thats okay just wait for the federal judge to rule that forcing a person to work away from home is not constitutional.

The only way to know for sure what is right is to wait for the judges rulings.

You are an attorney. I would imagine if a decent lawyer were defending a person they would bring up the non-hypotheticals of beach attire and attire broadcasted for years on National Television. If there was ever a broadcast television show portraying a scene with a person with clothing on doing a pole dance that could easily be argued that it is for all audiences.

Rapper Boozie Badass to the news Dwayne Wade was going along with his son transitioning. "If he going be gay let him be gay. But don't cut his d**k off." https://www.youtube.com/shorts/a-wLZ80LwGU

So why was nobody arrested? Did you know that TikTok will take down photos of "cisgender" women's breasts but not transwomen's breasts? It's a grey area. The Tennessee law cleared it up. The law is pretty straightforward. Just because you're in drag or trans doesn't mean you get to get around laws that already ban the same behavior if the performers are cisgender. Again, this wasn't about hypotheticals but about what was already happening. But how would you write the law? I guarantee you it would fall under the same attack because this is not at all about protecting the rights of trans beach goers.

Thanks for sharing! My first (and only really) exposure to the merchant marines was that episode of Taxi where one of the cabbies temporarily joined them. This was their "sea chanty."

Oh I'm sure sailor impressment carried great emotional weight but it had far less effect on the entire country. It's like how the for African Americans who got kidnapped by the Mexican drug cartel was a bigger story than all of the people dying every day from fentanyl. You had Republicans threatening to invade Mexico. And I'm sure the families of the two survivors were appreciative of the pressure because the cartel returned the captives pretty quickly after the public pressure and even turned over some patsies...I mean "kidnappers." As for the verse not mentioning a race....ummm....seriously that's your argument? By that time white slavery had been abolished in the U.S. I even remember reading about a southern town that almost rioted because they thought a very light skinned black slave was actually white. As for the slow communication part, it came after the war was declared but before the invasion of Canada. This would be like the U.S. declaring war on Mexico, not knowing the kidnapped victims were freed, and then finding out they were freed and going along with the invasion anyway. A SEAL Team Six extraction of the kidnapped victims would have been justified. A full on invasion, not so much. Look at this from the point of view of the individual Canadian frontiersman who's now defending his home from U.S. invaders over something he had nothing to do with. I can see killing British sailors trying to board U.S. ships. But killing Canadian frontiersman over British sailors boarding U.S. ships? Yeah...not buying that.

I would not dispute that. There was already a legal age for entering a nudie bar. What about the beach? What about a straight biological woman wearing string bikini at beach or walking thru town? What about Miss USA doing swimsuit competition on live TV. Didn't they recently do away with the swimsuit? Why? What about ABC televising Arnold? I am simply asking you to define how far your particular term applies. Is it appropriate for a straight biological male to be walking around town in a speedo? Okay what would be deemed appropriate? Is it okay for a straight buff biological male to be going for a run wearing only shorts and no shirt? Is it okay for women to walk around topless? As the OP pointed out, things need to be more clearly defined.

I'm curious that with the mugger having a Spanish angle you ruled out the race angle. Anyhow, the real motive here is obvious from the article. Foehner said nothing to reporters as he was led from the 102nd Precinct in handcuffs late Thursday afternoon after Queens prosecutors filed weapons charges including, criminal possession of a weapon and criminal possession of a firearm. Police then confirmed later in the evening that Foehner was charged with 26 counts of criminal possession of a weapon, but not charged in the fatal shooting. It comes after a search warrant recovered more than two dozen firearms, which included pistols, shotguns, rifles, three assault rifles, an AK47, 153 loaded high-capacity magazines, and two body armor vests. Foehner has a license for five rifles. Foehner told prosecutors, "I pulled the gun out of my pocket. It didn't go off accidentally. I pulled the trigger. I emptied the revolver. Last night I was carrying a firearm because of the crime in the city...I've had it since the 1990s. I obtained it in a bar one night. The firearms are mine and mine alone."

Interesting. I wonder what bluetooth headphones do? They have a much less powerful signal. Of course the cell phone in my pocket all the time next to my junk my sterilize me but I've had all my kids already.

The videos I posted are pretty clear. It's illegal in most states to take your 12 year old to the "nudie bar" as the infamous Al Bundy called it. Just because the girls at the nudie bar used to have, or still have, a penis shouldn't magically make that legal. This ain't complicated.

Oh I know cases like that have happened and have left me scratching my head. Yeah I can't think of a specific one. I found this law review article that covers this issue. https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1108&context=nlj Some of the relevant parts to what you're talking about: Many scholars have critiqued the Court’s Fourth Amendment standing doctrine for a variety of reasons,8 and I join the chorus with my view that the Court has developed an unduly narrow vision of standing (and thus, the Fourth Amendment) that fails to take into account the collective, regulatory objective of the Amendment and of its primary remedy—exclusion. However, the main focus of this Article is the Court’s collapse of the standing inquiry into the merits of a Fourth Amendment claim, a doctrinal move that, while noted by scholars, has not generally been the primary focus of analysis.9 I hope to demonstrate that with this move, the Court not only effectively restricted the scope of the Fourth Amendment, but helped ensure that its narrow, individualistic view would endure. To form a backdrop against which this argument can be developed, it is necessary to begin with a few thoughts on judicial activism in general and with respect to criminal procedure rules in particular. In an excellent article, Professor Stephen F. Smith provides a highly useful, ideologically neutral definition of judicial activism, in both its substantive and procedural dimensions.10 According to Professor Smith, substantive activism is implicated when a court reaches a decision at odds with the text or structure of the constitutional or statutory provision being adjudicated, when a court overrules precedent without proper justification under relevant stare decisis rules, or when a court distinguishes or limits precedent on tenuous grounds.11 Procedural activism, on the other hand, may be suspected when a court chooses to reach the merits of an issue despite justiciability rules that would (or should) otherwise restrain the court from so doing, or when a court decides more than is necessary to dispose of the case before it.12

Is it possible these are false flags? Maybe the underlying message is to scare good people away from guns for fear of incarceration. Oh and don't carry pepper spray, a knife, or use your martial arts training either. Just take a beatdown and watch your attacker go free.

I guess all those health and legal experts got it wrong. They usually do. It seems that being a skeptic of whatever the narrative, is a wise choice.

An illuminated light on the dashboard or code on a computer should have nothing to do with the passing or failing of a test measuring particulate matter exiting an exhaust system.

I have not been to the beach in a long time. I remember back in the 80's or 90's String Bikini's were a big thing. Would a beach with beautiful women wearing string bikini's be considered "prurient interest"? What about a nude beach? Is it the clothing, lack of clothing, or the behavior that is in question? Would wearing a string bikini away from a lake, swimming pool, ocean beach be "prurient interest?" If skimpy clothing is allowed at the beach/lake/swimming pool, would it not be okay for same person to wear same clothing around town? Arnold Schwarzenegger wore nothing but a speedo when posing in early years. Was that "prurient interest"? What about the old days of swimsuit issues of Sports Illustrated when they were not woke? Or going into Joe's garage where near naked beauties were on the calendar behind the owners desk? Is it okay for the strutting around in skimpy clothing with child in tow person committing an illegal act if they do it in their own home with their own child? I have no answers to the previous questions. I think if something is to be determined to be illegal there needs to be clear understanding of exactly is unlawful. Is it the clothing or lack thereof? Is it the attitude? Is it the biological gender of the person wearing the clothing? Is it wrong for a parent in their own home to walk naked across the room with the door open?

I stumbled upon this thread again. Sadly many of the photos and videos are no longer available, but thankfully this one still is! And....hate to admit it...but I never hear this song before. It's awesome though! Gun youtuber Brandon Harrera tested a Luty. It wasn't very accurate but I wonder how it would do with a rifled barrel?

Okay. I SMILE every time I hear that song. Just can't help it. Love the Lego version.

True. You are entitled to your opinion. I disagree. They got paid more than the people F.S. Key threatened in his song.

The regardless part isn't attached to the term "prurient". It's attached to the word "consideration". In law "consideration" means "for payment." So a sexually arousing performance (prurient) is off limits for minors regardless if its being done for payment or not. Last time I was at Hooters the waitresses really weren't that hot but the wings were pretty good. And Hooters waitresses dress pretty tame by today's standards. But going by your Hooters example, if the waitress that you found hot came out topless with nothing but pasties on would you find that more or less arousing? You know that there was recently a story on this forum about a 6 year old that raped another child right? Now 6 is 2 years past 4, but I'm willing to bet that a child who's moved on to rape 6 was probably exposed to sexually explicit material at 4 or 5. Is your argument that 4 year olds should be able to go into adult venues because they are too young? Not a good argument.

Okay. I see your point. I need to look up the briefings in this case because I don't know how the plaintiffs had standing. One can argue for standing based on a "chilling effect" argument meaning "I can't do what I want to do for fear that I'll be arrested for doing it." I believe there's been a recent challenge by a gun store over Biden's pistol brace ban under that theory. In this case the plaintiff's were a gay playhouse that included a female Elvis impersonator. I don't see that as prurient. In fact at the conservative Christian academy I went to in the 1980s one of the girls did that for a talent show. That's my feeling on this. This law has been mischaracterized in the media as a ban on drag shows. Drag shows were no more banned then are heterosexual strip shows. You can get a lap dance in Nashville, you just can't take your kids to watch.

What the Tennessee law was actually trying to stop. Little girl allowed to rub on drag queen's crotch in Chattanooga Tennesse. Minnesota drag queen at "story hour" exposing crotch to children. Anti Federalist posted a thread about this back in 2019.

And...that's the "justification" for the 20 year Afghanistan fiasco. Ron Paul warned against that and nobody listened. Letters of marque and reprisal would have been the correct response, not a land war which we basically lost.

The actual text of the law: BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE: SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 7-51-1401, is amended by adding the following language as a new subdivision: "Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a location other than an adult cabaret that features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, or similar entertainers, regardless of whether or not performed for consideration; SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 7-51-1407, is amended by adding the following language as a new subsection: (c) (1) It is an offense for a person to engage in an adult cabaret performance: (A) On public property; or

Kind of sounds like how we ended up in Afghanistan for 20 years. Please explain why I'm wrong for thinking that.