- 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
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: In 2020, Walz signed a law allowing an officer to protect themselves against vehicles
Posted on 1/11/26 at 2:42 pm to the808bass
Posted on 1/11/26 at 2:42 pm to the808bass
quote:
What the frick are you trying to argue?
The post in the OP is presented to morons like the OP as being the statute, word-for-word. People, even in this thread believe it is spelled out exactly as the screenshot in the OP, which is being plastered all over Xwitter by multiple accounts. It is misleading, likely by design.
1
Posted on 1/11/26 at 2:45 pm to LegendInMyMind
So is the interpretation of the law by the tweet (if we, perhaps incorrectly, charitably say that it’s presenting the intent of the law) incorrect?
If so, I’m interested where you would disagree with their interpretation.
If so, I’m interested where you would disagree with their interpretation.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 2:52 pm to the808bass
quote:
If so, I’m interested where you would disagree with their interpretation.
I don't disagree with the interpretation, as I've already stated in the thread.
The issue is saying that the governor signed a law that says "one very particular and specific thing" and allowing the mindless followers to believe that it actually says that very specific thing. The accounts pushing that know exactly what they're doing. 95% of the drones will see those tweets and go on believing that is the text of the law without ever bothering to look it up.
Any future court cases, which I don't think there should be, won't be argued on what those tweets say. Provide the statute, as it is written, and let people form their own opinions. Don't dishonesty lead them.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 2:53 pm to LegendInMyMind
90% of people couldn’t find their city on a map.
Good thing you’re not in a marketing department or running a campaign. You’d be an abject failure.
Good thing you’re not in a marketing department or running a campaign. You’d be an abject failure.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 2:53 pm to LegendInMyMind
quote:
Define "Exactly", you mouth breathing retard.
Liberals love to name call.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 2:54 pm to the808bass
quote:
90% of people couldn’t find their city on a map.
Correct. Which why lying to them when you don't fricking have to is a large part of the problem.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 2:55 pm to LegendInMyMind
quote:
The issue is saying that the governor signed a law that says "one very particular and specific thing" and allowing the mindless followers to believe that it actually says that very specific thing. The accounts pushing that know exactly what they're doing. 95% of the drones will see those tweets and go on believing that is the text of the law without ever bothering to look it up.
The law covers what’s expressed in the tweet. The ICE officer was justified in defending himself from the activist in the car.
Sorry you FEEL differently…
Posted on 1/11/26 at 2:55 pm to Placekicker
quote:
Liberals love to name call.
Brother, look around......you're in the equivalent of a sixth grade classroom, you cuck, pedo, libtard, panican, homo......you get it.
Don't be a mouth breathing moron and no one will call you a mouth breathing moron.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 2:56 pm to Placekicker
quote:
The law covers what’s expressed in the tweet.
And you continue to miss the point and you're too stupid to realize it.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 2:57 pm to LegendInMyMind
quote:
Which why lying to them when you don't fricking have to is a large part of the problem.
No. Lying to them would be incorrectly interpreting the law.
Correctly interpreting the law is not lying to them.
You just think you know more about this subject so you’re intent on being offended and you’re also a little pissed that the interpretation is correct because it’s not a cool interpretation for internet moderates.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 2:58 pm to the808bass
quote:
No. Lying to them would be incorrectly interpreting the law.
We will agree to disagree.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 3:01 pm to LegendInMyMind
Yeah. It’s not lying. You want it to be so that you’ll have the moral high ground in this argument. And you don’t.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 3:01 pm to the808bass
quote:
Yeah. It’s not lying.
It is.
And I don't give a shite about having the high ground, bud.
This post was edited on 1/11/26 at 3:02 pm
Posted on 1/11/26 at 3:03 pm to LegendInMyMind
quote:
And you continue to miss the point and you're too stupid to realize it.
The law is correctly applied. Just because you FEEL it shouldn’t, doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 3:04 pm to LegendInMyMind
Your whole argument is based on your idea that your moral interpretation of the tweeter’s intent is correct. I didn’t figure you were dumb enough to not realize that.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 5:14 pm to Placekicker
quote:The supposedly verbatim citation of the law in your OP is fictitious.
The law was debunked? I’m sorry that you FEEL that the law doesn’t apply here due to your TDS, but it’s black and white.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News