Jump to content

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

This is 110% exactly what I refer to when I say the globalization experiment failed. It just took 30-40 years to realize it. Cheap TVs were not worth the non-monetary price.

But we made the CCP more powerful in the process, so there’s that.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, O Face said:

Well done Texas!!

https://www.breitbart.com/news/supreme-court-lifts-stay-on-texas-law-that-gives-police-broad-powers-to-arrest-migrants-at-border/
 

And I suppose the SCOTUS as well, sad that common fucking sense needs to be heard ruled on by the highest court. 

Didn't last long (STS)...

Anticipation and anger on Texas border as strict immigration law again on hold

McALLEN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court late Tuesday again prevented Texas from arresting and deporting migrants accused of entering the U.S. illegally, hours after the law briefly took effect.

Before a divided U.S. Supreme Court earlier let the state law take effect while a legal challenge plays out, some sheriffs were ready to relish an unprecedented state expansion into border enforcement, while others were reluctant...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What’s pretty interesting is how much the left have dug their heals in on this issue the last several years.  In the late 2000s, the Dems were all about calling them “legal immigrants”, and even when they switched to “undocumented” under Obama, his admin was still deporting them.  Now Biden is apologizing for calling an alleged murderer, here illegally, an “illegal”, and actually trying to stop Texas from curbing illegal immigration…all during what is being called a “border crisis”.  I don’t know how accurate the polling is, but from what I’ve seen, a sizable majority doesn’t seem to be with the left on this issue.  Be interesting to see how this affects November, especially in non-blue states where incumbent Dem Senators are trying to hold onto their seats.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watch your rental houses if between leases

‘Invade Abandoned Houses’: Venezuelan Migrant Promotes Taking Advantage of ‘Squatters Rights’ in Viral Video

https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2024/03/21/invade-abandoned-houses-venezuelan-migrant-promotes-taking-advantage-of-squatters-rights-in-viral-video/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Watch your rental houses if between leases

‘Invade Abandoned Houses’: Venezuelan Migrant Promotes Taking Advantage of ‘Squatters Rights’ in Viral Video

https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2024/03/21/invade-abandoned-houses-venezuelan-migrant-promotes-taking-advantage-of-squatters-rights-in-viral-video/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IMG_8176.gif.9c22fbcdb569fd59f46875046eb35b9f.gif

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

img_1_1711072056571.jpgLouisiana national guard on their way to help Texas secure the border.

Edited by arg
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

Do any blue states have a castle doctrine?  I’m ignorant of the law here and I only own one house I occupy.  

Yes, California does.

 

Just like a medieval castle, outsiders are allowed to enter under the declaration of parlay, in order to petition the homeowner. Anyone under the protection of parlay must be offered food and protection for the duration of their visit, lest the honor of the homeowner be impugned at Royal Court.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Do any blue states have a castle doctrine?  I’m ignorant of the law here and I only own one house I occupy.  

Colorado and Washington do. A lot of blue states have the Castle Doctrine. Castle Doctrine first appeared specific to state and local laws in 1985 in Colorado. Colorado’s law shielded people from criminal and civil liability for using force against a home invader. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Colorado and Washington do. A lot of blue states have the Castle Doctrine. Castle Doctrine first appeared specific to state and local laws in 1985 in Colorado. Colorado’s law shielded people from criminal and civil liability for using force against a home invader. 

Yeah, two states that are trying hard to make it nearly impossible for anyone to have a gun...

A lot of good Castle Doctrine will do for anyone if they can't arm themselves!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

undefined

Stand your ground law by US jurisdiction   Stand-your-ground by statute   Stand-your-ground by judicial decision or jury instruction   Duty to retreat except in one's home   Duty to retreat except in one's home or workplace   Duty to retreat except in one's home or vehicle or workplace   Middle-ground approach
 

  • Thirty-eight states are stand-your-ground states, all but eight by statutes providing "that there is no duty to retreat from an attacker in any place in which one is lawfully present": Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa,[23] Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,[24][25][26] Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming; Puerto Rico is also stand-your-ground.[27][28] Of these, at least eleven include "may stand his or her ground" language (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and South Dakota.)[28] Pennsylvania limits the no-duty-to-retreat principle to situations where the defender is resisting attack with a deadly weapon.[29]
  • The other eight states[30] have case law/precedent or jury instructions so providing: California,[31][32] Colorado,[33][34] Illinois, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont,[35] Virginia,[36] and Washington;[37][38] the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands also falls within this category.
  • Eleven states impose a duty to retreat when one can do so with absolute safety: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island. New York, however, does not require retreat when one is threatened with robbery, burglary, kidnapping, or sexual assault.
  • Washington, D.C. adopts a "middle ground" approach, under which "The law does not require a person to retreat," but "in deciding whether [defendant] reasonably at the time of the incident believed that s/he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and that deadly force was necessary to repel that danger, you may consider, along with any other evidence, whether the [defendant] could have safely retreated ... but did not."[39] Wisconsin also adopts a "middle ground" approach, where "while there is no statutory duty to retreat, whether the opportunity to retreat was available goes to whether the defendant reasonably believed the force used was necessary to prevent an interference with his or her person."[40]
  • There is no settled rule on the subject in American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
  • In all duty to retreat states, the duty to retreat does not apply when the defender is in the defender's home (except, in some jurisdictions, when the defender is defending against a fellow occupant of that home). This is known as the "castle doctrine".
  • In Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, and Nebraska, the duty to retreat also does not apply when the defender is in the defender's place of work; the same is true in Wisconsin and Guam, but only if the defender is the owner or operator of the workplace.
  • In Wisconsin and Guam, the duty to retreat also does not apply when the defender is in the defender's vehicle.
  • Twenty-two states have laws that "provide civil immunity under certain self-defense circumstances" (Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wisconsin).[28] At least six states have laws stating that "civil remedies are unaffected by criminal provisions of self-defense law" (Hawaii, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, and Tennessee).[28]
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

Things are going well for the idiots that run Denver.

https://x.com/KyleClark/status/1773881376397316445?s=20

The dumbasses in NYC are managing well too. I saw a video of one of the leftist city council members who ranted about locking up Daniel Penny when he saved lives on the subway. She was complaining that men aren't stepping up to defend women who are getting assaulted (sucker punched, molested, pushed down stairs, etc) in the streets. A rational person won't interfere if they know they'll get in trouble for taking out the criminal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

Things are going well for the idiots that run Denver.

https://x.com/KyleClark/status/1773881376397316445?s=20

Fuck ‘em, Denver can burn for all I care. Much like public education, it needs to burn to ashes (figuratively) so it can be rebuilt to something good and CO can be the great state it was 30 years ago. Pipe dream probably.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Absolutely hilarious. Greg Abbott should be remembered for the single most effective political stunt in American history

It will be interesting to see if this issue is strong enough to overpower abortion as the deciding factor in the next election.  Right now the polls would indicate it is...I simply don't understand why our liberal friends think this situation is acceptable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

It will be interesting to see if this issue is strong enough to overpower abortion as the deciding factor in the next election.  Right now the polls would indicate it is...I simply don't understand why our liberal friends think this situation is acceptable.

They think it's acceptable when they live on their lesbian commune in Boulder, which still hasn't fully supported Denver with the migrant influx, while doing virtue signaling on social media. However, whenever the migrants start to appear in their neighborhoods while drinking their overpriced lattes or while shopping at their farmer's market, their NIMBYism comes out strong.

The residence of Martha's Vinyard were more than happy to escort the migrants to the bus to take them out of their town as soon as their took their photo op showing them giving them a sandwich and coat.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

Things are going well for the idiots that run Denver.

https://x.com/KyleClark/status/1773881376397316445?s=20

How about the idiots who vote for the idiots that run Denver. It's getting to the point that the Peterson SFB commissary is the most north I want to go in Colorado. Have to go to Boulder for a forest fire fighter class soon, looking forward to all the rainbow hair color spectrum LBGTQ I'll be seeing.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Prosuper said:

How about the idiots who vote for the idiots that run Denver. It's getting to the point that the Peterson SFB commissary is the most north I want to go in Colorado. Have to go to Boulder for a forest fire fighter class soon, looking forward to all the rainbow hair color spectrum LBGTQ I'll be seeing.   

Just enjoy the craft beer, it’s one thing the hippies have on the rest of the country, just one. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...