- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Woman in Minnesota tried ramming ICE Officer gets unalived. NSFW
Posted on 1/13/26 at 11:45 pm to NawlinsTiger9
Posted on 1/13/26 at 11:45 pm to NawlinsTiger9
quote:
you still gotta call them out
It won't work unless you call out your side as well.
There's no good reason not to enforce the traffic laws. No good reason not to identify and deport the violent illegal aliens. No good reason to call ICE agents kidnappers. And no good reason for the democratic stronghold cities to be terribly run and corrupt cesspools.
If you actually start doing that and demonstrate ethics and competence (instead of allegiance to one party) you will win not just the messaging battle. You'll make the people around you demand better too. And pretty soon you might have better schools, less crime and more jobs.
Even just the first step of demanding better within your own party might allow the occasional decent and competent human being to win an election.
3
Posted on 1/14/26 at 5:14 am to molsusports
Sounds like they might be charging the lady who encouraged her to hit the cop. Been waiting for that.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 5:51 am to NawlinsTiger9
quote:
But you still gotta call them out Fall asleep at the wheel with these fricks and we’ll end up voting something into office that can’t be cured with penicillin
All of this from a person that happily voted for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 6:15 am to kywildcatfanone
quote:
Sounds like they might be charging the lady who encouraged her to hit the cop. Been waiting for that.
Probably the only way to lose the optics battle even worse than they already have
Posted on 1/14/26 at 6:21 am to NawlinsTiger9
Oh no not losing the optics to you crazy loons
You might make excuses to vote for Gav now
You might make excuses to vote for Gav now
Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:00 am to whatiknowsofar
quote:
Lol. Definitely still in your feels bro
Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:02 am to NawlinsTiger9
What planet do you live on?
Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:07 am to NawlinsTiger9
quote:
Probably the only way to lose the optics battle even worse than they already have
Yes, we get it.
When your ilk attack, you have to lay there and take it. Whether it is being shot in the neck, run over, stabbed in the neck on a train while minding your business, shot in the head while working in your garden, or just doing your job while being screeched at and told that they are going to kill you....
Any response to this is "bad optics" and "fascism", somehow.
You people just can't stand the fact that others are standing up for themselves now and actually fighting back. That's the core of the issue with this current round of violent stupidity. There will be something else soon. You and yours just can't help yourselves.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:07 am to kywildcatfanone
quote:
Sounds like they might be charging the lady who encouraged her to hit the cop.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:14 am to NawlinsTiger9
quote:
Probably the only way to lose the optics battle even worse than they already have
All of this from a person that happily voted for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:28 am to SludgeFactory
Didn’t a bunch of federal prosecutors resign over the DOJ’s urging to investigate this woman? But yeah, it’s probably nothing.
But yeah, it’s probably nothing.Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:32 am to Open Your Eyes
quote:
All of this from a person that happily voted for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
He said she was gonna win in a landslide. Claims to be a male and voted for her
Yet he talks about optics
Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:38 am to NawlinsTiger9
define “a bunch”
Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:40 am to Klark Kent
Six of them at last count, including the guy who was overseeing the big fraud investigation that made the news recently
Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:42 am to Klark Kent
quote:
define “a bunch”
Sources at CNN said it is over 100 gazzillion. Trust him and them. They would never lie.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:44 am to molsusports
quote:
molsusports
See how he just ignored your completely rational post?
Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:45 am to IAmNERD
The conversation had come to a natural conclusion? What else would you like me to say in response to that?
Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:50 am to molsusports
quote:
It won't work unless you call out your side as well.
No every problem is bc of billionaires and/or white people lmao
Posted on 1/15/26 at 10:32 am to NawlinsTiger9
quote:Well this depends on the definition of the common but imprecise term.
Yall really want absolute immunity for federal agents?
In our early history, many federal personnel were harmed by state and local officials for simply doing their assigned jobs. Protections were created and Supreme Court rulings backed protections these up.
A particularly colorful example from 1890 was "In re Neagle" where a US Marshal shot and killed someone who was trying to kill a federal judge. The state of California charged him with murder, but the federal immunity was reaffirmed to preempt the state law, so his case was removed to federal court and eventually dismissed.
However, this man was and would be accountable to the federal system - had his actions been viewed as criminal in their jurisdiction.
So "total immunity" may not be without some level of accountability.
Seems almost necessary.
Posted on 1/15/26 at 10:57 am to NawlinsTiger9
quote:Well this depends on the definition of the common but imprecise term.
Yall really want absolute immunity for federal agents?
In our early history, many federal personnel were harmed by state and local officials for simply doing their assigned jobs. Protections were created and Supreme Court rulings backed protections these up.
A particularly colorful example from 1890 was "In re Neagle" where a US Marshal shot and killed someone who was trying to kill a federal judge. The state of California charged him with murder, but the federal immunity was reaffirmed to preempt the state law, so his case was removed to federal court and eventually dismissed.
However, this man was and would be accountable to the federal system - had his actions been viewed as criminal in their jurisdiction.
So "total immunity" may not be without some level of accountability.
Seems almost necessary.
Page 76 of 78
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News