Republican Dirty Politics

[Skylar]

Yeah, and who says that Michael flyn was detained by the federal agents?

There's you citing your imagination....and who else?

They tricked his ass and you know it .

And by 'tricking his ass', you mean they asked him questions....exactly like they told him they were going to do?

Again, who says Michael Flynn was detained? This is the beating heart of your entire argument about the '1966 Supreme Court ruling', and yet you've completely abandoned it.

If even you won't stand by the pseudo-legal horseshit you make up, what use would anyone else have for it?

Once the cops talk to you , you are being detained against your will .

Says who? Not the courts. Not law. Not Miranda v. Arizona or any other supreme court ruling in 1966. The Miranda court was very clear on what they meant by custodial interrogation. And it wasn't merely being questioned.

Where, pray tell, did you get this load of pseudo-legal horseshit?

Let me guess.....your imagination again?

Liar I know what you are trying to do California vs Pysock..


.

Laughing....you don't know a thing. Its California v. Prysock. You couldn't even spell it correctly. Prysock was about the order in which the Miranda warnings were given. Not the definition of 'detained'. In it, Prysock had been taken into custody and interrogated at a police substation.

Flynn was never taken into custody or detained in any way. He voluntarily agreed to be interviewed in his own office.

With Miranda V. Arizona makes it very clear what custodial interrogation is. And its not merely questioning by police. If you believe otherwise, show us the law or relevant court rulings.

Not merely your imagination.

 

[Wyatt earp]

They tricked his ass and you know it .

And by 'tricking his ass', you mean they asked him questions....exactly like they told him they were going to do?

Again, who says Michael Flynn was detained? This is the beating heart of your entire argument about the '1966 Supreme Court ruling', and yet you've completely abandoned it.

If even you won't stand by the pseudo-legal horseshit you make up, what use would anyone else have for it?

Once the cops talk to you , you are being detained against your will .

Says who? Not the courts. Not law. Not Miranda v. Arizona or any other supreme court ruling in 1966. The Miranda court was very clear on what they meant by custodial interrogation. And it wasn't merely being questioned.

Where, pray tell, did you get this load of pseudo-legal horseshit?

Let me guess.....your imagination again?

Liar I know what you are trying to do California vs Pysock..


.

Laughing....you don't know a thing. Its California v. Prysock. You couldn't even spell it correctly. Prysock was about the order in which the Miranda warnings were given. Not the definition of 'detained'. In it, Prysock had been taken into custody and interrogated at a police substation.

Flynn was never taken into custody or detained in any way. He voluntarily agreed to be interviewed in his own office.

With Miranda V. Arizona makes it very clear what custodial interrogation is. And its not merely questioning by police. If you believe otherwise, show us the law or relevant court rulings.

Not merely your imagination.

So you had to look it up and correct a spelling error?


I am one of the the smartest ones here and a 2nd grade drop out bitch ..


I set people up to research shit..





.

 

[Skylar]

And by 'tricking his ass', you mean they asked him questions....exactly like they told him they were going to do?

Again, who says Michael Flynn was detained? This is the beating heart of your entire argument about the '1966 Supreme Court ruling', and yet you've completely abandoned it.

If even you won't stand by the pseudo-legal horseshit you make up, what use would anyone else have for it?

Once the cops talk to you , you are being detained against your will .

Says who? Not the courts. Not law. Not Miranda v. Arizona or any other supreme court ruling in 1966. The Miranda court was very clear on what they meant by custodial interrogation. And it wasn't merely being questioned.

Where, pray tell, did you get this load of pseudo-legal horseshit?

Let me guess.....your imagination again?

Liar I know what you are trying to do California vs Pysock..


.

Laughing....you don't know a thing. Its California v. Prysock. You couldn't even spell it correctly. Prysock was about the order in which the Miranda warnings were given. Not the definition of 'detained'. In it, Prysock had been taken into custody and interrogated at a police substation.

Flynn was never taken into custody or detained in any way. He voluntarily agreed to be interviewed in his own office.

With Miranda V. Arizona makes it very clear what custodial interrogation is. And its not merely questioning by police. If you believe otherwise, show us the law or relevant court rulings.

Not merely your imagination.

So you had to look it up and correct a spelling error?

I don't cite cases without looking into them first. That's the difference between you and I. I know what Miranda v. Arizona says about custodial interrogation because I've read Miranda v. Arizona.

Its also how I know that you haven't read either Prysock or Miranda. As neither case say that merely questioning someone is detaining them.

That's just you, citing your imagination. Which again, has no relevance to the law.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans once again show their contempt for the will of the people.

First to block the voters right to decide minimum wage, secondly by withdrawing their wage increase once the election was over and thirdly by preventing a popularly elected governor from enforcing the law

Speaking of having no respect for the will of the people, what do you believe the Democrats are trying to do with this witch hunt against the Trump administration?

Your hypocrisy couldn't be more blatant.

Voters support Mueller's investigation and believe he should be given all the time he needs to complete his investigation.

Mueller is a Republican appointment

Democrats had no input to his selection or anyone on his staff

They actually did because Rosenstein is a deep state douchebag. He's on the same side as the Dims: absolute power. Fuck what the voters want.

Link

 

[Wyatt earp]

They tricked his ass and you know it .

And by 'tricking his ass', you mean they asked him questions....exactly like they told him they were going to do?

Again, who says Michael Flynn was detained? This is the beating heart of your entire argument about the '1966 Supreme Court ruling', and yet you've completely abandoned it.

If even you won't stand by the pseudo-legal horseshit you make up, what use would anyone else have for it?

Once the cops talk to you , you are being detained against your will .

Says who? Not the courts. Not law. Not Miranda v. Arizona or any other supreme court ruling in 1966. The Miranda court was very clear on what they meant by custodial interrogation. And it wasn't merely being questioned.

Where, pray tell, did you get this load of pseudo-legal horseshit?

Let me guess.....your imagination again?

Liar I know what you are trying to do California vs Pysock..


.

Laughing....you don't know a thing. Its California v. Prysock. You couldn't even spell it correctly. Prysock was about the order in which the Miranda warnings were given. Not the definition of 'detained'. In it, Prysock had been taken into custody and interrogated at a police substation.

Flynn was never taken into custody or detained in any way. He voluntarily agreed to be interviewed in his own office.

With Miranda V. Arizona makes it very clear what custodial interrogation is. And its not merely questioning by police. If you believe otherwise, show us the law or relevant court rulings.

Not merely your imagination.

It was a ruse to get him to set down his 5th amendment rights.


Rhode Island v. Innis



.

 

[rightwinger]

As compared to what, Commie Care will save families $2,500 a year on healthcare insurance? Everybody would be able to afford coverage? There will be no bad policies? You can keep your doctor, health facility and insurance company?

All lies if you ask me.

I examined Obama's 2008 inauguration speech, and I counted 22 lies in it.

22 lies according to you. And you make up shit constantly.

And Trump lied 5000 times according to you.

Not according to me. Trump has made over 5000 false or misleading statements according to the Washington Post....who has a running list of every false or misleading statement.

Analysis | President Trump has made more than 5,000 false or misleading claims

With you laughably insisting that any evidence of Trump's lies are 'fake news'.

Only fat homosexual idiots accept the Washington Post as a credible source.

One of the most respected and credible news sources in the world

If not, name one better

 

[Harry Dresden]

Conservatives are not big fans of democracy in any form. Make no mistake, we are fighting monsters.

Republicans will do whatever it takes to bypass the will of the voters

so did the democrats in California when the voters voted down the marriage bill,twice....they did whatever it took to bypass the will of the voters there....even their own voters on that one...

You missed all that Supreme Court stuff didn’t you

After the voters voted down gay marriage the Democratic legislature did not lame duck in gay marriage

and you missed were you said....Republicans will do whatever it takes to bypass the will of the voters.....just like the democrats did by taking it to court...did they by pass the will of the voters or not?....

 

[Wyatt earp]

Once the cops talk to you , you are being detained against your will .

Says who? Not the courts. Not law. Not Miranda v. Arizona or any other supreme court ruling in 1966. The Miranda court was very clear on what they meant by custodial interrogation. And it wasn't merely being questioned.

Where, pray tell, did you get this load of pseudo-legal horseshit?

Let me guess.....your imagination again?

Liar I know what you are trying to do California vs Pysock..


.

Laughing....you don't know a thing. Its California v. Prysock. You couldn't even spell it correctly. Prysock was about the order in which the Miranda warnings were given. Not the definition of 'detained'. In it, Prysock had been taken into custody and interrogated at a police substation.

Flynn was never taken into custody or detained in any way. He voluntarily agreed to be interviewed in his own office.

With Miranda V. Arizona makes it very clear what custodial interrogation is. And its not merely questioning by police. If you believe otherwise, show us the law or relevant court rulings.

Not merely your imagination.

So you had to look it up and correct a spelling error?

I don't cite cases without looking into them first. That's the difference between you and I. I know what Miranda v. Arizona says about custodial interrogation because I've read Miranda v. Arizona.

Its also how I know that you haven't read either Prysock or Miranda. As neither case say that merely questioning someone is detaining them.

That's just you, citing your imagination. Which again, has no relevance to the law.

You haven't read crap i am the one who knows about California vs. prysock because I am the one who brought it the fuck up...


.

 

[Skylar]

And by 'tricking his ass', you mean they asked him questions....exactly like they told him they were going to do?

Again, who says Michael Flynn was detained? This is the beating heart of your entire argument about the '1966 Supreme Court ruling', and yet you've completely abandoned it.

If even you won't stand by the pseudo-legal horseshit you make up, what use would anyone else have for it?

Once the cops talk to you , you are being detained against your will .

Says who? Not the courts. Not law. Not Miranda v. Arizona or any other supreme court ruling in 1966. The Miranda court was very clear on what they meant by custodial interrogation. And it wasn't merely being questioned.

Where, pray tell, did you get this load of pseudo-legal horseshit?

Let me guess.....your imagination again?

Liar I know what you are trying to do California vs Pysock..


.

Laughing....you don't know a thing. Its California v. Prysock. You couldn't even spell it correctly. Prysock was about the order in which the Miranda warnings were given. Not the definition of 'detained'. In it, Prysock had been taken into custody and interrogated at a police substation.

Flynn was never taken into custody or detained in any way. He voluntarily agreed to be interviewed in his own office.

With Miranda V. Arizona makes it very clear what custodial interrogation is. And its not merely questioning by police. If you believe otherwise, show us the law or relevant court rulings.

Not merely your imagination.

It was a ruse to get him to set down his 5th amendment rights.


Rhode Island v. Innis



.

Innis was arrested. Flynn never was.

Miranda warnings are only a requirement AFTER someone is taken into custody. Nor does Innis find that merely asking someone questions constitues detaining them.

Try again. This time actually reading the cases you're trying to cite rather than just tossing pseudo-legal horseshit against the wall and praying something sticks.

You're really not very good at this.

 

[Skylar]

Says who? Not the courts. Not law. Not Miranda v. Arizona or any other supreme court ruling in 1966. The Miranda court was very clear on what they meant by custodial interrogation. And it wasn't merely being questioned.

Where, pray tell, did you get this load of pseudo-legal horseshit?

Let me guess.....your imagination again?

Liar I know what you are trying to do California vs Pysock..


.

Laughing....you don't know a thing. Its California v. Prysock. You couldn't even spell it correctly. Prysock was about the order in which the Miranda warnings were given. Not the definition of 'detained'. In it, Prysock had been taken into custody and interrogated at a police substation.

Flynn was never taken into custody or detained in any way. He voluntarily agreed to be interviewed in his own office.

With Miranda V. Arizona makes it very clear what custodial interrogation is. And its not merely questioning by police. If you believe otherwise, show us the law or relevant court rulings.

Not merely your imagination.

So you had to look it up and correct a spelling error?

I don't cite cases without looking into them first. That's the difference between you and I. I know what Miranda v. Arizona says about custodial interrogation because I've read Miranda v. Arizona.

Its also how I know that you haven't read either Prysock or Miranda. As neither case say that merely questioning someone is detaining them.

That's just you, citing your imagination. Which again, has no relevance to the law.

You haven't read crap i amI am the one who knows about California vs. prysock because I am the one who brought it the fuck up...


.

Dude, you didn't even know how to spell California v. Prysock until I educated you. You've never read the case, as it has nothing to do with the definition of 'detention'. It has to do with the order in which Miranda warnings are given to someone *already* in custody.

The only one saying that questioning someone is detaining them.....is you citing whatever pseudo-legal horseshit you imagine.

And your imagination is legally irrelevant. Try again. This time reading the cases before you try to cite them.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Liar I know what you are trying to do California vs Pysock..


.

Laughing....you don't know a thing. Its California v. Prysock. You couldn't even spell it correctly. Prysock was about the order in which the Miranda warnings were given. Not the definition of 'detained'. In it, Prysock had been taken into custody and interrogated at a police substation.

Flynn was never taken into custody or detained in any way. He voluntarily agreed to be interviewed in his own office.

With Miranda V. Arizona makes it very clear what custodial interrogation is. And its not merely questioning by police. If you believe otherwise, show us the law or relevant court rulings.

Not merely your imagination.

So you had to look it up and correct a spelling error?

I don't cite cases without looking into them first. That's the difference between you and I. I know what Miranda v. Arizona says about custodial interrogation because I've read Miranda v. Arizona.

Its also how I know that you haven't read either Prysock or Miranda. As neither case say that merely questioning someone is detaining them.

That's just you, citing your imagination. Which again, has no relevance to the law.

You haven't read crap i amI am the one who knows about California vs. prysock because I am the one who brought it the fuck up...


.

Dude, you didn't even know how to spell California v. Prysock until I educated you. You've never read the case, as it has nothing to do with the definition of 'detention'. It has to do with the order in which Miranda warnings are given to someone *already* in custody.

The only one saying that questioning someone is detaning them.....is you citing whatever pseudo-legal horseshit you imagine.

And your imagination is legally irrelevant. Try again. This time reading the cases before you try to cite them.

That's how I fucking roll ..


25 years plus on the internet I use physcho warfare to get my point across .


.

 

[Skylar]

Laughing....you don't know a thing. Its California v. Prysock. You couldn't even spell it correctly. Prysock was about the order in which the Miranda warnings were given. Not the definition of 'detained'. In it, Prysock had been taken into custody and interrogated at a police substation.

Flynn was never taken into custody or detained in any way. He voluntarily agreed to be interviewed in his own office.

With Miranda V. Arizona makes it very clear what custodial interrogation is. And its not merely questioning by police. If you believe otherwise, show us the law or relevant court rulings.

Not merely your imagination.

So you had to look it up and correct a spelling error?

I don't cite cases without looking into them first. That's the difference between you and I. I know what Miranda v. Arizona says about custodial interrogation because I've read Miranda v. Arizona.

Its also how I know that you haven't read either Prysock or Miranda. As neither case say that merely questioning someone is detaining them.

That's just you, citing your imagination. Which again, has no relevance to the law.

You haven't read crap i amI am the one who knows about California vs. prysock because I am the one who brought it the fuck up...


.

Dude, you didn't even know how to spell California v. Prysock until I educated you. You've never read the case, as it has nothing to do with the definition of 'detention'. It has to do with the order in which Miranda warnings are given to someone *already* in custody.

The only one saying that questioning someone is detaning them.....is you citing whatever pseudo-legal horseshit you imagine.

And your imagination is legally irrelevant. Try again. This time reading the cases before you try to cite them.

That's how I fucking roll ..


25 years plus on the internet I use physcho warfare to get my point across .


.

Laughing...and by 'physcho warfare', you mean trying to cite cases you've never read and using your imagination as caselaw?

Good luck with that.

I'll stick with the actual court rulings. And none of them say that merely questioning someone is detaining them. That's just you ......making shit up.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. If voters are allowed to vote for a wage, whats stopping them for voting in a 512.00 an hour wage for bagging groceries?

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Lakhota]

Michigan voters pushed for a ballot initiative that raised minimum wage to $12 and mandated sick leave

So what did Republicans do?

They passed a law that raised minimum wage to $12 by 2022 with automatic increases and required employers to provide sick leave. Once they did this the ballot initiative was withdrawn

Once the election was over and before a Democratic Governor took over, Republicans pushed through a law changing the date of the $12 minimum wage to 2030 and removing inflation based increases and sick leave

Analysis | Why Michigan Republicans are working to undermine the minimum wage bill they passed

Republicans are pure evil.

 

[Skylar]

Michigan voters pushed for a ballot initiative that raised minimum wage to $12 and mandated sick leave

So what did Republicans do?

They passed a law that raised minimum wage to $12 by 2022 with automatic increases and required employers to provide sick leave. Once they did this the ballot initiative was withdrawn

Once the election was over and before a Democratic Governor took over, Republicans pushed through a law changing the date of the $12 minimum wage to 2030 and removing inflation based increases and sick leave

Analysis | Why Michigan Republicans are working to undermine the minimum wage bill they passed

Republicans are pure evil.

Nah. They're just caught up in a Cult of Personality. I'm hoping that they might actually find a way to adhere to the principles they claim to support rather.....someday.

 

[Wyatt earp]

So you had to look it up and correct a spelling error?

I don't cite cases without looking into them first. That's the difference between you and I. I know what Miranda v. Arizona says about custodial interrogation because I've read Miranda v. Arizona.

Its also how I know that you haven't read either Prysock or Miranda. As neither case say that merely questioning someone is detaining them.

That's just you, citing your imagination. Which again, has no relevance to the law.

You haven't read crap i amI am the one who knows about California vs. prysock because I am the one who brought it the fuck up...


.

Dude, you didn't even know how to spell California v. Prysock until I educated you. You've never read the case, as it has nothing to do with the definition of 'detention'. It has to do with the order in which Miranda warnings are given to someone *already* in custody.

The only one saying that questioning someone is detaning them.....is you citing whatever pseudo-legal horseshit you imagine.

And your imagination is legally irrelevant. Try again. This time reading the cases before you try to cite them.

That's how I fucking roll ..


25 years plus on the internet I use physcho warfare to get my point across .


.

Laughing...and by 'physcho warfare', you mean trying to cite cases you've never read and using your imagination as caselaw?

Good luck with that.

I'll stick with the actual court rulings. And none of them say that merely questioning someone is detaining them. That's just you ......making shit up.

Why does this bother you so much? I have expert knowledge on the 1966 law I used it so many times in my evil past to stay out of the jail .


I know every precedent since..when your in jail you have alot of fucking time to read...



.

 

[Skylar]

I don't cite cases without looking into them first. That's the difference between you and I. I know what Miranda v. Arizona says about custodial interrogation because I've read Miranda v. Arizona.

Its also how I know that you haven't read either Prysock or Miranda. As neither case say that merely questioning someone is detaining them.

That's just you, citing your imagination. Which again, has no relevance to the law.

You haven't read crap i amI am the one who knows about California vs. prysock because I am the one who brought it the fuck up...


.

Dude, you didn't even know how to spell California v. Prysock until I educated you. You've never read the case, as it has nothing to do with the definition of 'detention'. It has to do with the order in which Miranda warnings are given to someone *already* in custody.

The only one saying that questioning someone is detaning them.....is you citing whatever pseudo-legal horseshit you imagine.

And your imagination is legally irrelevant. Try again. This time reading the cases before you try to cite them.

That's how I fucking roll ..


25 years plus on the internet I use physcho warfare to get my point across .


.

Laughing...and by 'physcho warfare', you mean trying to cite cases you've never read and using your imagination as caselaw?

Good luck with that.

I'll stick with the actual court rulings. And none of them say that merely questioning someone is detaining them. That's just you ......making shit up.

Why does this bother you so much? I have expert knowledge on the 1966 law I used it so many times in my evil past to stay out of the jail .

Then use your 'expert knowledge' and show us where in the the '1966 law' it says that merely questioning someone is detaining them.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Go ahead. I'll wait.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Michigan voters pushed for a ballot initiative that raised minimum wage to $12 and mandated sick leave

So what did Republicans do?

They passed a law that raised minimum wage to $12 by 2022 with automatic increases and required employers to provide sick leave. Once they did this the ballot initiative was withdrawn

Once the election was over and before a Democratic Governor took over, Republicans pushed through a law changing the date of the $12 minimum wage to 2030 and removing inflation based increases and sick leave

Analysis | Why Michigan Republicans are working to undermine the minimum wage bill they passed

Republicans are pure evil.

We haven't killed 50 million children since the 1970s that would be you .


.

 

[bripat9643]

Again, says the wasteland of your imagination. You're the same hapless soul that insisted that Michael Flynn's rights were violated because he wans't read his Miranda rights before he was asked a few questions.,....and while NOT in custody.

That's not how Miranda rights work, Brit. That's how your imagination works.

And again, the law says that willfully and knowingly making materially false, ficticious and fraudulent statements to federal investigators is a crime. Which Michael Flynn openly admits he did.

The only one saying that Michael Flynn didn't lie to investigators....is you citing your imagination. Which, as your blunders regarding the Miranda requirements demonstrate, is useless gibberish.

Being detained by the law is in custody .


.

And who, pray tell, claim that Flynn was 'detained'.

There's you, citing yourself. And....who else? Not Flynn. Not any judge. Not the prosecutors. Not Flynn's lawyers.

Just your imagination. Do you see why your imagination might not be terribly compelling in an actual court of law?

It's funny how you bitch and moan the law kills kneegrows yet defend the law when going against a fucking 1966 supreme Court ruling..


.

The problem with your logic is......the only one saying that Michael Flynn was detained is you. Citing your imagination. And your imagination doesn't establish a violation of a 'fucking 1966 supreme court ruling'.

It merely establishes whatever you choose to make up, based on nothing.

Can you see why your imagination doesn't amount to much as a legal argument?

Your the one trying to skirt supreme Court ruling not me...



Have you ever been arrested? It's obvious powder puff you have not..


.

I'll bet he's been arrested for giving blowjobs in a gay bath house.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You haven't read crap i amI am the one who knows about California vs. prysock because I am the one who brought it the fuck up...


.

Dude, you didn't even know how to spell California v. Prysock until I educated you. You've never read the case, as it has nothing to do with the definition of 'detention'. It has to do with the order in which Miranda warnings are given to someone *already* in custody.

The only one saying that questioning someone is detaning them.....is you citing whatever pseudo-legal horseshit you imagine.

And your imagination is legally irrelevant. Try again. This time reading the cases before you try to cite them.

That's how I fucking roll ..


25 years plus on the internet I use physcho warfare to get my point across .


.

Laughing...and by 'physcho warfare', you mean trying to cite cases you've never read and using your imagination as caselaw?

Good luck with that.

I'll stick with the actual court rulings. And none of them say that merely questioning someone is detaining them. That's just you ......making shit up.

Why does this bother you so much? I have expert knowledge on the 1966 law I used it so many times in my evil past to stay out of the jail .

Then use your 'expert knowledge' and show us where in the the '1966 law' it says that merely questioning someone is detaining them.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Go ahead. I'll wait.

You really forgot about 1984...?


In Berkemer v. McCarty