- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- 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
0
Posted on 11/27/25 at 1:19 pm to GoblinGuide
quote:
You can infer just fine. It won't hold up in a court martial or a court of law however.
You don’t know that.
But I’m glad you’ve admitted we can analyze intent. Which was clear. Yet you support it. Pathetic.
Posted on 11/27/25 at 1:22 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Then the claim of sedition is dumb.
Let me break it down for you:
quote:
In the United States, the crime of "seditious conspiracy" is defined by federal law as conspiring to overthrow the government or to hinder its laws by force. It is a serious federal crime, distinct from simply expressing opposition or protesting policy through constitutional means.
It pretty clear cut, unless you’re a mind numbed, dumb arse, leftist.
Posted on 11/27/25 at 1:32 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
You don’t know that.
But I’m glad you’ve admitted we can analyze intent. Which was clear. Yet you support it. Pathetic.
I've watched Republicans do the same and more most of my adult life. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Posted on 11/27/25 at 1:45 pm to GoblinGuide
Lol Rs are pikers compared to Dems when it comes to hardball to.
Posted on 11/27/25 at 1:46 pm to GoblinGuide
quote:
I've watched Republicans do the same and more most of my adult life. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Pathetic. 
Posted on 11/27/25 at 1:59 pm to GoblinGuide
And you believe men can become women
Posted on 11/27/25 at 2:05 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:
In the United States, the crime of "seditious conspiracy" is defined by federal law as conspiring to overthrow the government or to hinder its laws by force
Yep, where did this occur?.
Posted on 11/27/25 at 2:06 pm to RogerTheShrubber
When they told the service members to ignore orders
This post was edited on 11/27/25 at 2:07 pm
Posted on 11/27/25 at 2:06 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Yep, where did this occur?.
Are we allowed to infer intent in this storyline or no?
Posted on 11/27/25 at 2:08 pm to HailToTheChiz
quote:
When they told the service members to ignore orders
If orders are illegal.
Do you have a problem with people ignoring illegal orders?
Pete torpedoed his own point.
quote:
?? It never named a specific “illegal order.”
?? It created ambiguity rather than clarity.
This post was edited on 11/27/25 at 2:11 pm
Posted on 11/27/25 at 2:10 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Do you have a problem with people ignoring illegal orders?
Does this apply to court orders as well?
Posted on 11/27/25 at 2:11 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Does this apply to court orders as well?
Yes. No doubt.
You should be pissed at Pete, not me. Pete is the one who destroyed his own argument.
Posted on 11/27/25 at 2:16 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
You should be pissed at Pete, not me. Pete is the one who destroyed his own argument.
Just trying to set the rules before proving you’re an idiot again. I’ll ask again. Are we allowed to infer intent with this story?
Posted on 11/27/25 at 2:17 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Just trying to set the rules before proving you’re an idiot again
Talk to Pete. He fricked up y'alls argument badly.
Poor Bongs.
Posted on 11/27/25 at 2:19 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Talk to Pete. He fricked up y'alls argument badly. Poor Bongs.
He isn’t arguing on my behalf. I’ll ask a third time. Don’t be a pussy and avoid the very straight forward question. Are we allowed to infer intent with this story or not?
Posted on 11/27/25 at 2:23 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
He isn’t arguing on my behalf.
He;'s destroying your argument.
quote:
?? It never named a specific “illegal order.”
?? It created ambiguity rather than clarity.
quote:
Are we allowed to infer intent with this story or not?
Why the frick do you need my permission?
But good luck in court. All you will do is pay lawyers to lose
Posted on 11/27/25 at 2:25 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
He;'s destroying your argument.
I haven’t made my argument yet. As I said. I’m trying to level set the rules before destroying your binary thinking simpleton “argument.”
quote:
Why the frick do you need my permission?
Nobody needs your permission. I’m level setting the boundaries of the argument.
quote:
But good luck in court. All you will do is pay lawyers to lose
Good for the lawyers then, right? Why don’t refuse to answer my very simple question? Pussy.
Posted on 11/27/25 at 2:26 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
I haven’t made my argument yet.
there isnt one. Just whining and raging
quote:
Good for the lawyers then, right?
frick em. biggest con racket in the country. We could do with 75% fewer of these leaches.
Posted on 11/27/25 at 2:29 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
there isnt one. Just whining and raging
You’re so tiresome. Still refuse to answer a simple question. I knew you would piss out. You’re the one whining and raging like a little girl.
If we are allowed to infer intent then it is obvious that the statement is seditious. And Trump called them out for that.
If we aren’t allowed to infer intent, there was nothing wrong with the factual statement they made. Likewise there is nothing wrong with the factual statement Trump made.
Pick whether you are ok with inferring intent or not. Either way Trump wins and you, again. Are just raging and whining. Grow a pair. Pussy.
This post was edited on 11/27/25 at 2:31 pm
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News