- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
LawTalkingGuy
| Favorite team: | |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 165 |
| Registered on: | 3/19/2025 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: New head of a major Mexican drug cartel is a U.S. citizen-thanks to birthright citizenship
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 3/20/26 at 6:35 am to Deplorableinohio
quote:
There is no such thing as birthright citizenship
Just curious...how did YOU become a US citizen?
I usually just use my birth certificate to prove citizenship, but now you're telling me that's meaningless?
0
re: What’s the point of NATO?
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 3/18/26 at 1:56 pm to VOR
quote:
NATO members have in fact assisted us in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have suffered casualties on our behalf.
Yes...they invoked article 5 and assisted us in Afghanistan because the US was attacked. And they were on the Frontline, despite what Trump said.
NATO did NOT assist in Iraq, however, many of our allies who are also NATO members did assist us....after months of buildup and consensus building.
re: What’s the point of NATO?
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 3/18/26 at 1:42 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
There are 30 something countries in NATO all with opinions. They could only hamper us when we are considering what to do with a country madly working toward a nuclear weapon. It shows that NATO is really a one way street when it comes to their security or in particular cases, our's. Iran can simply use the propaganda machine to separate our interests from NATO. I think it's done.
NATO is a defensive pact. Article 5 of yhe NATO charter has been invoked exactly ONCE: following the attacks on 9/11.
When I said we should involve our allies in making offensive military decisions, I wasn't talking about getting consensus from all 30 NATO members, just our actual allies.
What doesn't make sense is telling the British Navy to go frick itself, and then two weeks later complain when they won't help protect the Strait.
re: What’s the point of NATO?
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 3/18/26 at 1:36 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
The question was about NATO. At what point did I question whether this action should have been taken? I support confronting Iran, I just believe Congress should have voted on it first.
re: What’s the point of NATO?
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 3/18/26 at 7:38 am to Deuces
The point of NATO is defensive. Members dont have to help out in an offensive war of choice.
Our allies typically help us out, but thats when they are part of the decision making process. You cant just start a military on your own - with Israel, of course - and expect your allies to just jump.on board.
Our allies typically help us out, but thats when they are part of the decision making process. You cant just start a military on your own - with Israel, of course - and expect your allies to just jump.on board.
re: Watching the WBC. We’ve been invaded by the 3rd world.
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 3/17/26 at 10:41 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
We've been the visiting team in our own country against Mexico, Dominican Republic and now Venezuela. That isn't a superpower, it's a globalist empire in steep decline.
Its the WBC, which most Americans dont care about. Most Americans probably didnt even know the games were being played.
And, with the notable exception of Venezuela, most of these foreign teams are using American born players.
re: You want the Save Act? Ted Cruz hears you
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 3/17/26 at 10:06 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
Trump better not sign a goddamn thing until the voter id shite is passed
If he doesn't sign it, it becomes law after 10 days. If he vetoes it, a 2/3 majority in each house overrides the veto....and since it already passed both houses unanimously...
re: Statement from Tulsi on the Iran imminent threat
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 3/17/26 at 4:25 pm to hawgfaninc
Leavitt makes a great case for invading Iran. The administration should have had no problem convincing congress to vote in favor of an AUMF.
re: Trump: They weren't supposed to go after all these other countries in the Middle East.
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 3/17/26 at 6:22 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
Let's think about this. Which one sounds better to our allies in the gulf?
We didn't know Iran was going to attack you.
Or
We knew they were going to attack you but didn't care.
Both statements sound pretty reckless and uninformed. But, no one ever accused Trump of being a great orator.
re: Stephen Miller: If all of the fraud were stopped, it would be enough to balance the budget
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 3/17/26 at 6:13 am to Ailsa
Go after the fraud, absolutely, and slash the budget to adjust for no longer making fraudulent payments. No question.
But our budget deficit for FY 2026 is close to $2 Trillion. I dont believe eliminating fraud is going to cover that. Probably not even half.
Keep going after the fraud, even the fraud committed by US citizens. Just dont make hyperbolic claims about it.
But our budget deficit for FY 2026 is close to $2 Trillion. I dont believe eliminating fraud is going to cover that. Probably not even half.
Keep going after the fraud, even the fraud committed by US citizens. Just dont make hyperbolic claims about it.
re: The FBI Raided Trump's Home Over Classified Documents, Biden & Hillary Weren't Raided....
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 3/14/26 at 2:29 pm to KCT
The way the statute is written, its only a crime to possess classified documents if you intentionally take them for a nefarious purpose, OR you refuse to give them back when they are discovered. Biden let the FBI come get them. Clinton erased a bunch of digital files, but otherwise complied (I think she should have been charged with some type of obstruction, but IDK)
Trump refused to let the FBI come search his files. That gave the FBI the opening to get the warrant. (Yes, there is a legal question whether Trump declassified the documents are otherwise had a right to them...im just saying he gave them the opening they wanted).
Obviously the whole thing was orchestrated to go after Trump and end his political career. But you asked for a legitimate reason for the different treatment, and that is it.
I think the statutes should be amended. It should at least be a misdemeanor to.unknowingly possess classified documents. Put the onus on people with access to be damn sure they are protecting the information
Trump refused to let the FBI come search his files. That gave the FBI the opening to get the warrant. (Yes, there is a legal question whether Trump declassified the documents are otherwise had a right to them...im just saying he gave them the opening they wanted).
Obviously the whole thing was orchestrated to go after Trump and end his political career. But you asked for a legitimate reason for the different treatment, and that is it.
I think the statutes should be amended. It should at least be a misdemeanor to.unknowingly possess classified documents. Put the onus on people with access to be damn sure they are protecting the information
re: Fun Fact Friday
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 3/13/26 at 5:51 pm to DarkDrifter
quote:
But no declared war here
We haven't had a declared war since WWII
quote:
Also, if Clinton would have taken a minute to not bang interns and just lazily lobs some tomahawks into the Afghan mountains we might have avoided that two decade stint there
Highly unlikely. Al Qaida would have lived on.
re: Fun Fact Friday
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 3/13/26 at 12:37 pm to DarkDrifter
quote:
What exact War did Reagan start again??
I dont think the OP meant to include Reagan, but Reagan did get us involved in "peacekeeping" in Lebanon, which resulted in a marine base getting bombed, and the US then bombing Libya.
And there was the funding of that rascally group of rebels in Afghanistan who were fighting the Soviets.
He invaded Granada, too, but that is in our hemisphere.
re: Fetterman says he won’t vote for SAVE Act ‘in its current state’
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 3/13/26 at 10:15 am to loogaroo
quote:
Trump said he will not sign any legislation unless it is passed.
Unless he vetoes a bill, it becomes law in 10 days even without his signature.
re: Epstein's Accountant is Fifth Witness to Say Trump was not Involved
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 3/12/26 at 12:04 pm to AlterEd
The same witness also reportedly said he paid survivor money to a teen who accused Trump. That can be taken a lot of different ways, of course, but I would rather see deposition transcripts than listen to partisan spin from either side.
re: POTUS Trump knows that only fools would believe this is not worth it!!
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 3/8/26 at 9:38 pm to Timeoday
I think its a fair trade. Higher costs in the short term to potentially eliminate Iran as a terrorism threat.
But not everyone would agree, which is why our elected representatives should have voted on this first.
But not everyone would agree, which is why our elected representatives should have voted on this first.
re: Speaking of those tariff refunds...
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 3/7/26 at 9:15 am to TigerAxeOK
quote:
You get dribbles from the Epstein files that have been concluded for 12 years, but after a month it's balls-to-the-wall on this garbage.
I dont really see any type of comparison.
I think the CIT is frustrated with the CBP and DOJ over this.
Throughout the litigation the government assured the Courts that if the tariffs were ruled illegal it would refund the money it collected. There was some discussion in the SCOTUS arguments that refunds would be problematic, but still an understanding that refunds would be due.
Judge Eaton is putting their feet to the fire. I love to see Federal Judges use their power to get things done, even if I dont like what they order.
I once had a Federal Judge ban my client from Galveston Island. Pretty sure he didnt have the power to do that, but my client left. It was hilarious.
Judge Eaton has probably gone too far here, and I expect the CAFC to support him, but tell him to dial it down a notch.
I doubt SCOTUS will take up any further appeals on the matter.
Speaking of those tariff refunds...
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 3/6/26 at 5:13 pm
The CIT isnt fooling around. On Wednesday, in Atmus Filtration v. US, , a case seeking tariff refunds, Judge Eaton responded to a motion for injunction by ordering the office of Customs and Border Patrol to begin liquidating all tariffs payments received under the IEEPA tariffs for immediate refund. The Judge's order purports to apply to all tariffs paid by all parties, even those not currently before the Court.
The Judge anticipated the immediate legal objections. He said the CIT had appointed him the Judge for all refund matters. He also says his Order does not violate the "No national.injunctions" rule because the tariffs have to be applied to all parties equally.
DOJ moved for a stay, which the Judge denied.
Today, the DOJ filed a paper stating the CBP cannot comply with the Order. It received about $166 Billion from over 330,000 different parties, and their refund system can't handle the workload.
No doubt this will be appealed to the CAFC. This is moving faster than I thought possible.
court ruling
The Judge anticipated the immediate legal objections. He said the CIT had appointed him the Judge for all refund matters. He also says his Order does not violate the "No national.injunctions" rule because the tariffs have to be applied to all parties equally.
DOJ moved for a stay, which the Judge denied.
Today, the DOJ filed a paper stating the CBP cannot comply with the Order. It received about $166 Billion from over 330,000 different parties, and their refund system can't handle the workload.
No doubt this will be appealed to the CAFC. This is moving faster than I thought possible.
court ruling
re: China has ordered its largest oil refiners to suspend diesel & gas exports
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 3/4/26 at 11:30 pm to hawgfaninc
Between Venezuela and Iran combined, China is only losing about 10 to 12% of the oil it imports.
So, China has to buy more oil on the open market, driving up the price for all of us. Yay.
I mean, Im glad China cannot buy sanctioned oil below market price, but I dont see how this is a major blow to them.
So, China has to buy more oil on the open market, driving up the price for all of us. Yay.
I mean, Im glad China cannot buy sanctioned oil below market price, but I dont see how this is a major blow to them.
re: The single biggest tragedy of the War on Terror after 9/11 was that Trump wasn't president
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 3/4/26 at 10:13 am to TDsngumbo
Our intelligence in the ME was terrible back then. When Operation Iraqi Freedom began, we bombed a restaurant where Saddam and his two sons were allegedly having dinner. Turns out just one son was there.
Our initial operation in Afghanistan was actually quite impressive. Both Iran and Russia helped us - because everyone in the world knew the US had to act and they didnt want to get in our way.
Russia let us use their air base to deploy troops. The Iranians connected us to tribal leaders who opposed the Taliban. We swiftly moved in, deposed the Taliban, and assisted the Afghanis in holding free elections.
Most importantly, we did NOT mount a massive invasion that was sure to get bogged down in a prolonged war. That was what Bin Laden was hoping for, and was the primary purpose of the 9/11 attacks.
We missed on getting Bin Laden, obviously, and had no real exit strategy, but the initial response could not have been executed any better.
Our initial operation in Afghanistan was actually quite impressive. Both Iran and Russia helped us - because everyone in the world knew the US had to act and they didnt want to get in our way.
Russia let us use their air base to deploy troops. The Iranians connected us to tribal leaders who opposed the Taliban. We swiftly moved in, deposed the Taliban, and assisted the Afghanis in holding free elections.
Most importantly, we did NOT mount a massive invasion that was sure to get bogged down in a prolonged war. That was what Bin Laden was hoping for, and was the primary purpose of the 9/11 attacks.
We missed on getting Bin Laden, obviously, and had no real exit strategy, but the initial response could not have been executed any better.
re: Now we know where those Pacific drug boats were from
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 3/4/26 at 10:00 am to Ailsa
Los Lobos? I hadn't heard much from them since they made the soundtrack for La Bamba. Sad to hear they went into the cartel business.
Popular
20
