jmurph wrote:
Wait, Arizona was about a state legislating and enforcing immigration laws, which is preempted. A state law that prohibits state governance from enforcing federal laws is perfectly fine. Normally, there are agreements to work together, but that is not mandatory. The feds can respond by tying up federal funds if they want to.

Obstruction is something else entirely, and not contemplated by the bill (see the provisions that provide for notification of federal agencies in certain circumstances, for example).

 Frazzled wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
Maybe it's like how "'Advise & Consent" can mean "refuse to do anything" if that's what the majority wants to do.

I mean, can anyone show me where's it's mandated that a state may not pass a bill like this regardless of federal law?

Supremacy clause of the Constitution of the United States

Affirmed in the case of Lee vs. Grant (appeal denied)

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

1. You are correct. Its his Constitutional prerogative (congrats on the SAT word!!! ) to do so.
2. I'll raise you one. In my opinion Garland was eminently qualified to do sit on the bench.

My objection is only that he is a moderate and was nominated to replace the heart of the conservative wing and the arguably the greatest conservative thinker in jurisprudence in the 20th century. That was a thumb in the eye by Obama considering nominations by Sotamayor etc went without difficulty.

If we play alternate universes for a second, could it not be possible that, if Garland was brought in and confirmed, that it would start a trend to get a full bench of "moderate" judges, and a return to the much less politicized nature of SCOTUS rulings? I will grant that ALL SCOTUS rulings are political in some way shape or form, but what I'm saying is that I think it possible to step that aspect back a bit from where it's at.

Do you mean instead of Gorsuch or to replace another moderate when they retire (remember we have three that could be considered physically failing at this point)? Kennedy is moderate conservative. Ginsberg is moderate liberal. Breyer is moderate conservative but I think he stays around longer.

EDIT: I would have no problem with Garland replacing one of these although Breyer is more conservative. The problem is have is that one vote could effectively eliminate the 2nd Amendment. The First is strongly defended but the 4th and 5th are almost a joke now.

 d-usa wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
Wait, Arizona was about a state legislating and enforcing immigration laws, which is preempted. A state law that prohibits state governance from enforcing federal laws is perfectly fine. Normally, there are agreements to work together, but that is not mandatory. The feds can respond by tying up federal funds if they want to.

Obstruction is something else entirely, and not contemplated by the bill (see the provisions that provide for notification of federal agencies in certain circumstances, for example).

This doesn't feel like it's much different than any state with legal weed.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
Loading...

Supremacy clause of the Constitution of the United States

Affirmed in the case of Lee vs. Grant (appeal denied)

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
Wait, Arizona was about a state legislating and enforcing immigration laws, which is preempted. A state law that prohibits state governance from enforcing federal laws is perfectly fine. Normally, there are agreements to work together, but that is not mandatory. The feds can respond by tying up federal funds if they want to.

Obstruction is something else entirely, and not contemplated by the bill (see the provisions that provide for notification of federal agencies in certain circumstances, for example).

This doesn't feel like it's much different than any state with legal weed.

Guess what, the Fed can drop the hammer literally at any time on that.

This paper also explains why permissive
state laws matter: states are able to foster, or
at least enable, federally proscribed behavior,
even when they cannot engage in, require,
or facilitate it—or block federal authorities
from imposing their own harsh sanctions on
it—that is, even when states cannot depart
from the state of nature. The federal government
does not have the law enforcement resources
needed to enforce its bans vigorously
(although this could vary somewhat by context),
and its ability to marshal the most important
private and social behavioral influences
to enhance compliance with its bans is
likewise limited.202 As a practical matter, by
simply legalizing a given behavior, the states
can remove or at least diminish the most
significant barriers inhibiting that behavior,
including state legal sanctions (which often
can be enforced vigorously) and the personal,
moral, and social disapproval of the behavior
as well.

 feeder wrote:
If Cali doesn't want to cooperate with the feds regarding immigration then there isn't a whole lot the feds can do, apart from withholding funds. (Isn't Cali a "give" state rather than "take" when it comes to the flow of money?)

Frazz quoted America's Band earlier, and I think one can glean a nugget of wisdom from the Boys from the beach in any situation.

"Fell in love years ago with an innocent girl / From the Spanish and Indian home, home of the heroes and villains"

 Frazzled wrote:
So it looks like Susan Rice of the infamous Banghazi fame was the one who ordered the unmasking.
And some of the fire appears from the smoke.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-03/top-obama-adviser-sought-names-of-trump-associates-in-intel

op Obama Adviser Sought Names of Trump Associates in Intel
7707
April 3, 2017 10:13 AM EDT
By
Eli Lake

White House lawyers last month learned that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The pattern of Rice's requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government's policy on "unmasking" the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like "U.S. Person One."
Nunes Says Trump Team Caught in U.S. Surveillance Net

The National Security Council's senior director for intelligence, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, was conducting the review, according to two U.S. officials who spoke with Bloomberg View on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly. In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice's multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel's office, who reviewed more of Rice's requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy.

The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations -- primarily between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration.

Rice did not respond to an email seeking comment on Monday morning. Her role in requesting the identities of Trump transition officials adds an important element to the dueling investigations surrounding the Trump White House since the president's inauguration.

Both the House and Senate intelligence committees are probing any ties between Trump associates and a Russian influence operation against Hillary Clinton during the election. The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Representative Devin Nunes, is also investigating how the Obama White House kept tabs on the Trump transition after the election through unmasking the names of Trump associates incidentally collected in government eavesdropping of foreign officials.

Rice herself has not spoken directly on the issue of unmasking. Last month when she was asked on the "PBS NewsHour" about reports that Trump transition officials, including Trump himself, were swept up in incidental intelligence collection, Rice said: "I know nothing about this," adding, "I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that account today."

Rice's requests to unmask the names of Trump transition officials do not vindicate Trump's own tweets from March 4 in which he accused Obama of illegally tapping Trump Tower. There remains no evidence to support that claim.

But Rice's multiple requests to learn the identities of Trump officials discussed in intelligence reports during the transition period does highlight a longstanding concern for civil liberties advocates about U.S. surveillance programs. The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This suggests Rice's unmasking requests were likely within the law.

The news about Rice also sheds light on the strange behavior of Nunes in the last two weeks. It emerged last week that he traveled to the White House last month, the night before he made an explosive allegation about Trump transition officials caught up in incidental surveillance. At the time he said he needed to go to the White House because the reports were only on a database for the executive branch. It now appears that he needed to view computer systems within the National Security Council that would include the logs of Rice's requests to unmask U.S. persons.

The ranking Democrat on the committee Nunes chairs, Representative Adam Schiff, viewed these reports on Friday. In comments to the press over the weekend he declined to discuss the contents of these reports, but also said it was highly unusual for the reports to be shown only to Nunes and not himself and other members of the committee.

Indeed, much about this is highly unusual: if not how the surveillance was collected, then certainly how and why it was disseminated.

 whembly wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Stop having to the same conversation with him, at this point you are just the battered wife's going back once more thinking that this time he'll change.

It's pointless to have people on ignore if every other person quotes the same weekly conversation anyway.

At what point does his treatment of other posters and insulting of your intelligence constitute a rule 1 violation that will actually be punished?

But no, it's OT itself that the mods need to threaten.

Excusez-moi?

Seems to me that you're having issues with posters having a different opinion and wanting the authoritah to "make it right".

 Ouze wrote:
The problem isn't the pigeon gaking everywhere. It's a pigeon, that's what it does.

The problem is with you guys who really should know better who keep showing up with bags of bread crumbs. Please, just stop.

There is never, ever going to be an honest debate there. Not this time, not next time, not ever.

 d-usa wrote:
If the Feds go to "war" with California over this issue, many more states will side with California. I don't think stomping on states would end well for the party in power over two federal branches.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Fraz, how about you show us on the Doll where California touched you inappropriately? Whats your beef with that state anyways?

If anything Texas has done more to try and drag the country kicking and screaming back to the middle ages with all the repressive laws against women and minorities they pass over there.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Self defense, but no control over their own body.

Her interest was not in national security but to advance the political interests of the Democratic party.

he thing to bear in mind is that the White House does not do investigations. Not criminal investigations, not intelligence investigations. Remember that. Why is that so important in the context of explosive revelations that Susan Rice, President Obama’s national-security adviser, confidant, and chief dissembler, called for the “unmasking” of Trump campaign and transition officials whose identities and communications were captured in the collection of U.S. intelligence on foreign targets?

Because we’ve been told for weeks that any unmasking of people in Trump’s circle that may have occurred had two innocent explanations: (1) the FBI’s investigation of Russian meddling in the election and (2) the need to know, for purposes of understanding the communications of foreign intelligence targets, the identities of Americans incidentally intercepted or mentioned.

The unmasking, Obama apologists insist, had nothing to do with targeting Trump or his people. That won’t wash. In general, it is the FBI that conducts investigations that bear on American citizens suspected of committing crimes or of acting as agents of foreign powers. In the matter of alleged Russian meddling, the investigative camp also includes the CIA and the NSA. All three agencies conducted a probe and issued a joint report in January.

That was after Obama, despite having previously acknowledged that the Russian activity was inconsequential, suddenly made a great show of ordering an inquiry and issuing sanctions.

Consequently, if unmasking was relevant to the Russia investigation, it would have been done by those three agencies. And if it had been critical to know the identities of Americans caught up in other foreign intelligence efforts, the agencies that collect the information and conduct investigations would have unmasked it. Because they are the agencies that collect and refine intelligence “products” for the rest of the “intelligence community,” they are responsible for any unmasking; and they do it under “minimization” standards that FBI Director James Comey, in recent congressional testimony, described as “obsessive” in their determination to protect the identities and privacy of Americans.

Understand: There would have been no intelligence need for Susan Rice to ask for identities to be unmasked. If there had been a real need to reveal the identities — an intelligence need based on American interests — the unmasking would have been done by the investigating agencies.

The national-security adviser is not an investigator. She is a White House staffer. The president’s staff is a consumer of intelligence, not a generator or collector of it. If Susan Rice was unmasking Americans, it was not to fulfill an intelligence need based on American interests; it was to fulfill a political desire based on Democratic-party interests.

The FBI, CIA, and NSA generate or collect the intelligence in, essentially, three ways: conducting surveillance on suspected agents of foreign powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and carrying out more-sweeping collections under two other authorities — a different provision of FISA, and a Reagan-era executive order that has been amended several times over the ensuing decades, EO 12,333.

As Director Comey explained, in answering questions posed by Representative Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.), those three agencies do collection, investigation, and analysis. In general, they handle any necessary unmasking — which, due to the aforementioned privacy obsessiveness, is extremely rare. Unlike Democratic-party operatives whose obsession is vanquishing Republicans, the three agencies have to be concerned about the privacy rights of Americans. If they’re not, their legal authority to collect the intelligence — a vital national-security power — could be severely curtailed when it periodically comes up for review by Congress, as it will later this year.

Those three collecting agencies — FBI, CIA, and NSA — must be distinguished from other components of the government, such as the White House. Those other components, Comey elaborated, “are consumers of our products.” That is, they do not collect raw intelligence and refine it into useful reports — i.e., reports that balance informational value and required privacy protections. They read those reports and make policy recommendations based on them.

White House staffers are not supposed to be in the business of controlling the content of the reports; they merely act on the reports. Thus, Comey added, these consumers “can ask the collectors to unmask.” But the unmasking authority “resides with those who collected the information.”

Of course, the consumer doing the asking in this case was not just any government official. We’re talking about Susan Rice. This was Obama’s right hand doing the asking. If she made an unmasking “request,” do you suppose anyone at the FBI, CIA, or NSA was going to say no?

That brings us to three interesting points. The first involves political intrusion into law enforcement — something that the White House is supposed to avoid. (You may remember that Democrats ran Bush attorney general Alberto Gonzales out of town over suspicions about it.) As I have noted repeatedly, in publishing the illegally leaked classified information about former national-security adviser Michael Flynn’s communications with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, the New York Times informs us that “Obama advisers” and “Obama officials” were up to their eyeballs in the investigation:

Obama advisers heard separately from the F.B.I. about Mr. Flynn’s conversation with Mr. Kislyak, whose calls were routinely monitored by American intelligence agencies that track Russian diplomats. The Obama advisers grew suspicious that perhaps there had been a secret deal between the incoming team and Moscow, which could violate the rarely enforced, two-century-old Logan Act barring private citizens from negotiating with foreign powers in disputes with the United States. The Obama officials asked the F.B.I. if a quid pro quo had been discussed on the call, and the answer came back no, according to one of the officials, who like others asked not to be named discussing delicate communications. [Translation: “asked not to be named committing felony unauthorized disclosure of classified information.”] The topic of sanctions came up, they were told, but there was no deal. [Emphasis added.]

It appears very likely that Susan Rice was involved in the unmasking of Michael Flynn. Was she also monitoring the FBI’s investigation? Was she involved in the administration’s consideration of (bogus) criminal charges against Flynn? With the subsequent decision to have the FBI interrogate Flynn (or “grill” him, as the Times put it)?

The second point is that, while not a pillar of rectitude, Ms. Rice is not an idiot. Besides being shrewd, she was a highly involved, highly informed consumer of intelligence, and a key Obama political collaborator. Unlike the casual reader, she would have known who the Trump-team players were without needing to have their identities unmasked. Do you really think her purpose in demanding that names be revealed was to enhance her understanding of intelligence about the activities and intentions of foreign targets? Seriously? I’m betting it was so that others down the dissemination chain could see the names of Trump associates — names the investigating agencies that originally collected the information had determined not to unmask.

Third, and finally, let’s consider the dissemination chain Rice had in mind. The most telling remark that former Obama deputy defense secretary Evelyn Farkas made in her now-infamous MSNBC interview was the throw-away line at the end: “That’s why you have all the leaking.”

Put this in context: Farkas had left the Obama administration in 2015, subsequently joining the presidential campaign of, yes, Hillary Clinton — Trump’s opponent. She told MSNBC that she had been encouraging her former Obama-administration colleagues and members of Congress to seek “as much information as you can” from the intelligence community. “That’s why you have the leaking.”

To summarize: At a high level, officials like Susan Rice had names unmasked that would not ordinarily be unmasked. That information was then being pushed widely throughout the intelligence community in unmasked form . . . particularly after Obama, toward the end of his presidency, suddenly — and seemingly apropos of nothing — changed the rules so that all of the intelligence agencies (not just the collecting agencies) could have access to raw intelligence information. As we know, the community of intelligence agencies leaks like a sieve, and the more access there is to juicy information, the more leaks there are.

Meanwhile, former Obama officials and Clinton-campaign advisers, like Farkas, were pushing to get the information transferred from the intelligence community to members of Congress, geometrically increasing the likelihood of intelligence leaks. By the way, have you noticed that there have been lots of intelligence leaks in the press? There’s an old saying in the criminal law: The best evidence of a conspiracy is success. The criminal law also has another good rule of thumb: Consciousness of guilt is best proved by false exculpatory statements. That’s a genre in which Susan Rice has rich experience. Two weeks ago, she was asked in an interview about allegations by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R., Calif.) that the Obama administration had unmasked Trump-team members. “I know nothing about this,” Rice replied. “I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today.”

 Frazzled wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Self defense, but no control over their own body.

I know right? Why just yesterday I saw the Borg going house to house talking about da wimminz will be assimilated.

 whembly wrote:
Okay then...

Susan Rice’s White House Unmasking: A Watergate-style Scandal

Her interest was not in national security but to advance the political interests of the Democratic party.

he thing to bear in mind is that the White House does not do investigations. Not criminal investigations, not intelligence investigations. Remember that. Why is that so important in the context of explosive revelations that Susan Rice, President Obama’s national-security adviser, confidant, and chief dissembler, called for the “unmasking” of Trump campaign and transition officials whose identities and communications were captured in the collection of U.S. intelligence on foreign targets?

Because we’ve been told for weeks that any unmasking of people in Trump’s circle that may have occurred had two innocent explanations: (1) the FBI’s investigation of Russian meddling in the election and (2) the need to know, for purposes of understanding the communications of foreign intelligence targets, the identities of Americans incidentally intercepted or mentioned.

The unmasking, Obama apologists insist, had nothing to do with targeting Trump or his people. That won’t wash. In general, it is the FBI that conducts investigations that bear on American citizens suspected of committing crimes or of acting as agents of foreign powers. In the matter of alleged Russian meddling, the investigative camp also includes the CIA and the NSA. All three agencies conducted a probe and issued a joint report in January.

That was after Obama, despite having previously acknowledged that the Russian activity was inconsequential, suddenly made a great show of ordering an inquiry and issuing sanctions.

Consequently, if unmasking was relevant to the Russia investigation, it would have been done by those three agencies. And if it had been critical to know the identities of Americans caught up in other foreign intelligence efforts, the agencies that collect the information and conduct investigations would have unmasked it. Because they are the agencies that collect and refine intelligence “products” for the rest of the “intelligence community,” they are responsible for any unmasking; and they do it under “minimization” standards that FBI Director James Comey, in recent congressional testimony, described as “obsessive” in their determination to protect the identities and privacy of Americans.

Understand: There would have been no intelligence need for Susan Rice to ask for identities to be unmasked. If there had been a real need to reveal the identities — an intelligence need based on American interests — the unmasking would have been done by the investigating agencies.

The national-security adviser is not an investigator. She is a White House staffer. The president’s staff is a consumer of intelligence, not a generator or collector of it. If Susan Rice was unmasking Americans, it was not to fulfill an intelligence need based on American interests; it was to fulfill a political desire based on Democratic-party interests.

The FBI, CIA, and NSA generate or collect the intelligence in, essentially, three ways: conducting surveillance on suspected agents of foreign powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and carrying out more-sweeping collections under two other authorities — a different provision of FISA, and a Reagan-era executive order that has been amended several times over the ensuing decades, EO 12,333.

As Director Comey explained, in answering questions posed by Representative Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.), those three agencies do collection, investigation, and analysis. In general, they handle any necessary unmasking — which, due to the aforementioned privacy obsessiveness, is extremely rare. Unlike Democratic-party operatives whose obsession is vanquishing Republicans, the three agencies have to be concerned about the privacy rights of Americans. If they’re not, their legal authority to collect the intelligence — a vital national-security power — could be severely curtailed when it periodically comes up for review by Congress, as it will later this year.

Those three collecting agencies — FBI, CIA, and NSA — must be distinguished from other components of the government, such as the White House. Those other components, Comey elaborated, “are consumers of our products.” That is, they do not collect raw intelligence and refine it into useful reports — i.e., reports that balance informational value and required privacy protections. They read those reports and make policy recommendations based on them.

White House staffers are not supposed to be in the business of controlling the content of the reports; they merely act on the reports. Thus, Comey added, these consumers “can ask the collectors to unmask.” But the unmasking authority “resides with those who collected the information.”

Of course, the consumer doing the asking in this case was not just any government official. We’re talking about Susan Rice. This was Obama’s right hand doing the asking. If she made an unmasking “request,” do you suppose anyone at the FBI, CIA, or NSA was going to say no?

That brings us to three interesting points. The first involves political intrusion into law enforcement — something that the White House is supposed to avoid. (You may remember that Democrats ran Bush attorney general Alberto Gonzales out of town over suspicions about it.) As I have noted repeatedly, in publishing the illegally leaked classified information about former national-security adviser Michael Flynn’s communications with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, the New York Times informs us that “Obama advisers” and “Obama officials” were up to their eyeballs in the investigation:

Obama advisers heard separately from the F.B.I. about Mr. Flynn’s conversation with Mr. Kislyak, whose calls were routinely monitored by American intelligence agencies that track Russian diplomats. The Obama advisers grew suspicious that perhaps there had been a secret deal between the incoming team and Moscow, which could violate the rarely enforced, two-century-old Logan Act barring private citizens from negotiating with foreign powers in disputes with the United States. The Obama officials asked the F.B.I. if a quid pro quo had been discussed on the call, and the answer came back no, according to one of the officials, who like others asked not to be named discussing delicate communications. [Translation: “asked not to be named committing felony unauthorized disclosure of classified information.”] The topic of sanctions came up, they were told, but there was no deal. [Emphasis added.]

It appears very likely that Susan Rice was involved in the unmasking of Michael Flynn. Was she also monitoring the FBI’s investigation? Was she involved in the administration’s consideration of (bogus) criminal charges against Flynn? With the subsequent decision to have the FBI interrogate Flynn (or “grill” him, as the Times put it)?

The second point is that, while not a pillar of rectitude, Ms. Rice is not an idiot. Besides being shrewd, she was a highly involved, highly informed consumer of intelligence, and a key Obama political collaborator. Unlike the casual reader, she would have known who the Trump-team players were without needing to have their identities unmasked. Do you really think her purpose in demanding that names be revealed was to enhance her understanding of intelligence about the activities and intentions of foreign targets? Seriously? I’m betting it was so that others down the dissemination chain could see the names of Trump associates — names the investigating agencies that originally collected the information had determined not to unmask.

Third, and finally, let’s consider the dissemination chain Rice had in mind. The most telling remark that former Obama deputy defense secretary Evelyn Farkas made in her now-infamous MSNBC interview was the throw-away line at the end: “That’s why you have all the leaking.”

Put this in context: Farkas had left the Obama administration in 2015, subsequently joining the presidential campaign of, yes, Hillary Clinton — Trump’s opponent. She told MSNBC that she had been encouraging her former Obama-administration colleagues and members of Congress to seek “as much information as you can” from the intelligence community. “That’s why you have the leaking.”

To summarize: At a high level, officials like Susan Rice had names unmasked that would not ordinarily be unmasked. That information was then being pushed widely throughout the intelligence community in unmasked form . . . particularly after Obama, toward the end of his presidency, suddenly — and seemingly apropos of nothing — changed the rules so that all of the intelligence agencies (not just the collecting agencies) could have access to raw intelligence information. As we know, the community of intelligence agencies leaks like a sieve, and the more access there is to juicy information, the more leaks there are.

Meanwhile, former Obama officials and Clinton-campaign advisers, like Farkas, were pushing to get the information transferred from the intelligence community to members of Congress, geometrically increasing the likelihood of intelligence leaks. By the way, have you noticed that there have been lots of intelligence leaks in the press? There’s an old saying in the criminal law: The best evidence of a conspiracy is success. The criminal law also has another good rule of thumb: Consciousness of guilt is best proved by false exculpatory statements. That’s a genre in which Susan Rice has rich experience. Two weeks ago, she was asked in an interview about allegations by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R., Calif.) that the Obama administration had unmasked Trump-team members. “I know nothing about this,” Rice replied. “I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today.”

Since last Friday... Adam Schiff been awfully quiet...

 Ustrello wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Self defense, but no control over their own body.

I know right? Why just yesterday I saw the Borg going house to house talking about da wimminz will be assimilated.

Your shtick is wearing really thin frazz, there is a reason people don't take what you say seriously. If you don't think texas is one of the most repressive states regarding women, I have some property on the moon to sell you

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Self defense, but no control over their own body.

I know right? Why just yesterday I saw the Borg going house to house talking about da wimminz will be assimilated.

Your shtick is wearing really thin frazz, there is a reason people don't take what you say seriously. If you don't think texas is one of the most repressive states regarding women, I have some property on the moon to sell you

1. Its the internet. No one should take anyone seriously.
2. Wait you live in the hell of Chicago and you're talking at me? How many teenagers did the police shoot on TV today? Come back to me when your news doesn't have people facebooking live sex assaults and police shooting mentally ill people walking down the street on video.
3. Plus NY style superior Chicago style inferior.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Self defense, but no control over their own body.

I know right? Why just yesterday I saw the Borg going house to house talking about da wimminz will be assimilated.

Your shtick is wearing really thin frazz, there is a reason people don't take what you say seriously. If you don't think texas is one of the most repressive states regarding women, I have some property on the moon to sell you

1. Its the internet. No one should take anyone seriously.
2. Wait you live in the hell of Chicago and you're talking at me? How many teenagers did the police shoot on TV today? Come back to me when your news doesn't have people facebooking live sex assaults and police shooting mentally ill people walking down the street on video.
3. Plus NY style superior Chicago style inferior.

And that proves most peoples points that you are nothing but a partisan troll

Oh, and St. Louis Thincrusts > NY style > Chicago style.

 Frazzled wrote:
Are you saying Democrats support facebooking live sex assaults? I can't believe you would believe such a thing. Most Democrats are good people. I am sure you're probably a good person too, despite being from Chicago.***


***My wife is from Chicago. After a moderate discussion with her I must amend my statement and agree wholeheartedly that Chicago style is the best. Oh and the doc says I need to be careful and quit falling down the stairs like that. On top of constantly running into doors over and over and over I really need to watch that.

Oh, and St. Louis Thincrusts > NY style > Chicago style.

DON'T SAY THAT YOU'LL GET THE BAT er I mean the wife has has asked my permission - following all state laws and obtaining the requisite permission from myself and her father as she does live in one of the most repressive states in the US- to politely disagree.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Frazzled doesn't take the discussion very seriously be he is consistent with that. I find his point of view interesting and worth responding to even if I disagree. He tends not to tangent into outright silliness until someone makes a hyperbolic statement like accusing Texas of trying to drag us back to the middle ages.

Fortunately I live in California and am free to say that our 'style' of salad-on-crush pizza is inferior to all of them

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Oh, and St. Louis Thincrusts > NY style > Chicago style.

Fortunately I live in California and am free to say that our 'style' of salad-on-crush pizza is inferior to all of them

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Oh, and St. Louis Thincrusts > NY style > Chicago style.

Fortunately I live in California and am free to say that our 'style' of salad-on-crush pizza is inferior to all of them

Californian here. Where the feth are you getting your pizza?

Just had Chicago pizza while at Adepticon. Good stuff, but I'll stick with the local CA stuff. NY pizza is a greasy triangle with erectile dysfunction, so that is always a hard pass.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Oh, and St. Louis Thincrusts > NY style > Chicago style.

Fortunately I live in California and am free to say that our 'style' of salad-on-crush pizza is inferior to all of them

Californian here. Where the feth are you getting your pizza?

Just had Chicago pizza while at Adepticon. Good stuff, but I'll stick with the local CA stuff. NY pizza is a greasy triangle with erectile dysfunction, so that is always a hard pass.

You want good pizza in Illinois, you are going to have to go south. Way south. Pretty much St. Louis, but NOT St. Louis style pizza. Provel cheese does not belong on pizza and it is an abomination.