CougarCorner

Ddawg wrote:

Cougarfan87 wrote:

Ddawg wrote:

snoscythe wrote:

Ddawg wrote:Aren't you folks glad Hillary didn't win?

Abso-tootin'-lutely.

However - for all you Hillary fans (and I know you are a HUGE Hillary fan Sno' ), there is still hope. If California secedes, Hillary could be elected president of the new nation of California. Simply precious.

Are they still talking about secession? Perhaps now they understand why federalism is a good thing. Live in the state that best matches how you want to live rather than forcing your views on everyone else. The founders wisely understood the importance of state's rights.

In a word - "Yes". I am proud to report the wonderful Socialist state of California is so angry over Trump's election, yes, they are talking about secession. They are also talking about legislatively making California a "Sanctuary" state. Fire up the bong, take another hit dude!

They do understand where most of their water for Southern California comes from, right? After secession, I am sure the rest of the U.S., even if it allowed it...remember the Civil War, or War of Northern Agression...would let L.A. dry up into the desert it once was by choking off the water supply.

Cougarfan87 wrote: ...... let L.A. dry up into the desert it once was by choking off the water supply.

Perfect. Nice "reset."

Ddawg wrote:I know you are a HUGE Hillary fan Sno'

Ever since she attended my 7th Birthday party, she has graced my every dream....

snoscythe wrote:

Ddawg wrote:I know you are a HUGE Hillary fan Sno'

Ever since she attended my 7th Birthday party, she has graced my every dream....

Suhweeeeeeet!!!! What a lucky guy!
(Great post)

Ddawg wrote:Nancy Pelosi tonight on Neil Gorsuch -

Pelosi made the claim that Gorsuch has come down on the side of corporate America, and that he has come out against “clean air, clean water, food safety, safety in medicine, and the rest,” and finished by saying he would be harmful for your children."

Gorsuch is definitely the right guy.

The proper response to Nancy is, "We have to approve Gorsuch as a SCOTUS justice so we can see what kind of justice he will be."

Good one.

SpiffCoug wrote:

Ddawg wrote:Nancy Pelosi tonight on Neil Gorsuch -

Pelosi made the claim that Gorsuch has come down on the side of corporate America, and that he has come out against “clean air, clean water, food safety, safety in medicine, and the rest,” and finished by saying he would be harmful for your children."

Gorsuch is definitely the right guy.

The proper response to Nancy is, "We have to approve Gorsuch as a SCOTUS justice so we can see what kind of justice he will be."

Excellent choice of words. Nancy P. would choke on that response.

Ddawg wrote:Nancy Pelosi tonight on Neil Gorsuch -

Pelosi made the claim that Gorsuch has come down on the side of corporate America, and that he has come out against “clean air, clean water, food safety, safety in medicine, and the rest,” and finished by saying he would be harmful for your children."

Gorsuch is definitely the right guy.

Haw haw! Can you imagine believing much of what she says?

He may not be as conservative as you think regarding the 2nd amendment.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... ncern.html

jvquarterback wrote:He may not be as conservative as you think regarding the 2nd amendment.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... ncern.html

Interesting article. In a state that allows concealed carry permits, I struggle to see the logic that having a concealed handgun presents probable cause, or falls under the Terry stop and frisk. I hope some 2A senators do question him on joining in the opinion. He probably is more of a 2A supporter, and this case falls under one of the many I learned about in criminal procedure during law school called the "guilty as hell rule." If the criminal was truly guilty, the courts will find a way to justify the conviction, regardless of what the Constitution says...unless it is a really, really egregious Constitutional violation.

In this case, a man in New Mexico had an unlawful concealed carry weapon that a police officer noted. The officer disarmed and arrested the man. The police officer had no way of knowing if the gun was illegally carried, but the court upheld the conviction under the Terry stop and frisk logic. There are some facts missing that would be interesting to know. Did the officer ask him if he had a permit? Did the man voluntarily answer the question? The article states the officer disarmed first, and asked questions later, but I would like to know more about the case before I concluded that the Nominee is not a second amendment supporter.