Back in the US... back in the US... back in the USSA!!!

Blah, blah, blah, Trump triggers me, blah, blah, blah

So you're fine with a president threatening to violate people's free speech rights because people say things he doesn't like?

So 1st Amendment until Dear Leader hands down your goose stepping orders, then?

Why are libs so dense?

So anyone who sides with the Constitution rather than Trump is a "lib" your book, eh? That explains a lot.

No, we know libs by their words and actions.

Uh, it would really help if you read the Constitution. Just saying.

You mean like Article II, Section 1, Clause 8?

And now you're lying.

Oh, now I see it. Clearly a DELETED LIE!!!!!!!!!!TRUMP BAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MAGA SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You sure [deleted] didn't make a secret code comment, all my stuff is under the title sevenheart with a little sun and ray of sunshine in front of it. Deleted lies, how disgusting!

Then the conspiracy deepens because imgflip puts this note up if you try to comment on the DELETED LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Error
Uh oh, the comment you are replying to was deleted!

I'm just thankful you don't delete your lies when you don't disable comments. Thanks, I truly appreciate that.

Whaaaa? Copying the text is a lie? I'm shocked! Shocked I say!!!

"Cite the text please, because the Emoluments Clause is Article I, Section 9, Clause 8. Just saying, but then you're a ....snort....constitutional expert. Excuse me."

No need for me to repeat something you already posted below in your desperate scramble to put distance between yourself and the lie you uttered then deleted about Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.

Okay I know it's above your paygrade, I posted the Emoluments (paycheck) Clause for you below. Do you want me to post it again for you? I'd be glad to do that. There's this service called GOOGLE where you can look these things up, it's easy, even I can do it.

No, presenting the Emoluments Clause claiming it's Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution is lying... and hilarious coming from someone who wants to advise others "it would really help if you read the Constitution."

Okay, now I'm trying to understand your logic. Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 are not the same thing. There are a couple of notable differences. What actually was the point you were trying to make with Article II, Section 1, Clause 8? Notice, I'm not accusing you of lying, only changing the subject when you appear to be having trouble discussing the issue you brought up. Trying to help you develop your logical reasoning skills. I care.

Cite the text please, because the Emoluments Clause is Article I, Section 9, Clause 8. Just saying, but then you're a ....snort....constitutional expert. Excuse me.

You mean like article II, Section 1 clause 8? Clause 8 Presidential Oath of Office
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:– I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Forced to delete the evidence demonstrating you thought Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 is the Emoluments Clause, huh? That was priceless!!! 🤣

Delete what? Please, check out what is listed as Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 and show me how it's different than what I posted. Please.

I mean, the oath of office is pretty clear- best of your ability, like the Auto Pen?

And now you're just throwing stuff at the wall hoping something'll stick... 🤣

Of course... you say that now. Problem is that empty gap where you [deleted] your lie in effort to hide it isn't going anywhere.

Oh a deleted lie? Is there a deleted lie in the room with you now? Almost the equivalent of a crime!!!! How dare anyone delete a lie, noble communists never do!!!!!!!

Last chance, make your point on Article II, Section 1, Clause 8

Already did... two days ago. Thank you for proving you don't really comprehend what you read.

Come on, that's pretty lame. I got a 4 day time out for playing along with the insult alts. If you can't remember why you wanted to make a point with "You mean like Article II, Section 1, Clause 8?" That's fine. Projection is not using logic or reason.

And logical analysis of this latest lie you've uttered reduces it to 4 components:

1. You're trying to create a false narrative that receiving a comment timer penalty prevents one from reading comments.

2. You're trying to create a false narrative that I can't remember the point even though the comment to which you responded demonstrates not only that I did ("Already did...") at the time of the comment but that I knew how long it had been ("two days ago") since its posting. It's been three days now -which brings things to

3. You're either too stupid to scroll down/use the Notifications quick-jump feature or you're deliberately refusing to risk viewing something that has the potential to impact, alter your weltanschauung.

4. You're obviously -one might even say lamely- projecting your failure to functionally, successfully engage in logic and reason onto me.

As you've demonstrated (just like the Orange Deceiver) you're a liar, nothing but falsehoods, deception and denial, this exchange is over.

---------------------

ATTN: politics moderator

Should this comment be reported re: "insulting other users" I contend that it's not an insult (e.g. "liar) if it's true. Further, I urge you review the comments for evidentiary content, demonstration of complainant's prevarication.

Answering your critique, you referred to the easily obtained statement below-
Article II, Section 1 clause 8? Clause 8 Presidential Oath of Office
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:– I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
There is no false narrative here, only quoting your Constitutional Reference
Thank you for calling me too stupid. Reading your comments surely qualified me for that title.
Applying logic, Trump took the oath of office as described and he has been faithfully executing the Office of President. Fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayers money has been positively impacted, well within the guidance for a president. Crime rates have dropped tremendously across the nation. Drug overdose deaths are greatly reduced. Illegal occupants of our nation have been offered safe passage out or, in compliance with law have been removed from the borders. Legislation has been proposed and passed to fulfill the agenda that the President publicly ran on.
Just because you don't like what Trump was elected to do, doesn't mean your opinion supersedes other citizens wishes. We got to live through Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, BHO and Auto Pen without riots or violence.
I commend your ability to copy and paste official sounding jargon that has nothing to do with your simple question- "You mean like Article II, Section 1 Clause 8, as quoted above.

I mean... it would really help if you read the Constitution because then you wouldn't prove you don't actually know what's in there. Just sayin'

How about this one- 11th Amendment
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
Seems kind of interesting.

Mhmm... that's part stipulating the federal government is to keep its nose out of state level civil/criminal matters. Do you have a point or are you just trying to run away from having lied about the Emoluments Clause?

Lie? Proof. Where is the in my comments? Okay, I'll bite, here's the Emoluments Clause
Article II, Section 1, Clause 7:

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
And for proof of what that EVIL word Emolument means-

emolument /ĭ-mŏl′yə-mənt/
noun
Payment for an office or employment; compensation.
The profit arising from office, employment, or labor; gain; compensation; advantage; perquisites, fees, or salary.
Similar: gaincompensationadvantage
Payment for an office or employment; compensation for a job, which is usually monetary.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition •
Tell me if I'm wrong, but that sounds exactly like a paycheck for doing a job.

WRONG! Try again. Everyone is on to the commie tactic of accusing others of what they are doing.

Oops, double negative there "wouldn't prove you don't actually know" You could delete the comment and edit it for clarity, for example "it would really help if you read the Constitution because then you would prove you don't actually know what's in there. Just sayin'

All this over a Google that somehow managed to give you the wrong information and so you deleted the comment after you were informed of the mishap?

Because liberals don't like commies.

Here's hoping that that wall is dense enough to prevent them from completely taking over the United States of America (or at least not the parts that matter. Quite frankly, the Civil War was a mistake. The sooner we get rid of the flotsam, the better), comradovsky,.,.,.

Wow! You didn't disable comments, and this is the best you can do? Maybe you should disable them and practice a little more. Just saying. It's not like the Biden Administration shutting down free speech and cancelling people with research to save lives during Covid or questioning election results (like when they counted more ballots than there were registered voters- stuff like that), you would voluntarily shut off your comments, then freely come back when you are thonking clearly.

Lady Deer Heart can explain it to you if you need help, except you can't leave comments on her memes.

Wow... you're repeating rightwing propaganda from the Biden Era?! Really?!

Oh no, I was cancelled by that administration. I know people who had their homes raided by the FBI for speaking up at school board meetings a move advocated by the Biden Auto Pen Administration, I have friends from 2 different Catholic churches that had FBI agents surveilling them. I know Tina Peters who is someone I know who was imprisoned by the Biden Auto Pen machine for doing her job- it was a complete railroad. A Colorado judge conspired to make an example of her. The truth trumps lies. Just like Trump being "convicted of 34 felonies" which were all technically misdemeanors, most well past the statute of limitations? Yeah, don't let the truth smack you in the agenda.

Sure you were...

Uh yes I was. Facebook banned me before I even had an account. Someone even set up a Twitter (soon to be X) account for me with the handle "(My first name)is in deep shit" I thought it was so cute I changed the password and kept it. There are others, but DELETED LIE!!!!!!!!!! or something. Are there still deleted lies in the room with you right now?

So Facebook banned you... but you didn't have an account. Can you hear how crazy you sound?

Yeah I can. It was the stupidest thing I've ever heard. A daughter in law wanted to post newborn photos in one place to share with family, so when I signed up for an account, I was rejected on disgusting grounds. When I appealed it they rejected me again. It's just as well, research shows that Fakebook sucks out people's brains and the founders won't even let their own children use it. That's the truth about my situation, take it or leave it, I really don't care. Fakebook Marketplace might be nice, but I've lived well this long without it.

They probably had someone wanted posters on the wall.

someone's*

This is so sad.

Eh, it's that time of the year again for some folks.

Yup... it's like there was an ocean of crazy just waiting for the slightest little nudge to go tsunami. And all Sevs had to was own the error to get a rectraction and apology on grounds of "fair eneough, mistakes happen..."

Let's start over. What point were you trying to make with Article II, Section 1, Clause 8? You lost me when you started arguing Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 instead. Seriously, what was the point you wanted to make on Article II, Section 1, Clause 8? I've wanted to engage you in conversation for some time but you have a history of disabling comments that makes that impossible. This is my one chance to find out what you think and why. I'd love for the dialog to be more civilized, like I have with a lot of others who disagree here, but snark rules the day with modda, mercurio and you most times. I know what I know because I was taught. Educate me.

Sorry, Mercurio is a good Mexican friend of mine, I accidently typed his name.

The OP speaks for itself. Additionally, per the fact that operation under the Presidential Oath of Office comes with a voluntary, knowingly undertaken obligation to put one's own opinions to the side should said opinion stand in opposition to Constitutional guarantees, a POTUS calling for violation of First Amendment protections over a reasonable deduced scorching case of hurt feefees is abandonment of Oath, an attack on the very thing they're sworn to defend.

You indicate you want to start over except you're still trying to lie your way out of posting the text of the Emoluments Clause as Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 and then deleting the comment when called on it. Given you've demonstrated you can't be trusted to be intellectually honest, there's no reason to continue this exchange.

This is around the time round 5 years ago that he had said his wife had taken ill. And for that he was lashing out at everyone else much as he is doing now. Mind you, this is not some teen doing a quickie Hollywood reenactment running out in a thunderstorm yelling at the rain to express his distress, this is someone in his 70s or so.

Quite frankly, I don't even recall anybody when I was a kid acting like that over a loss. The only ones I ever encountered were 2 or 3 (the 3rd didn't say, but he sure seemed upset about something) on this site.

Who was that, I never heard this one before? Hope he's feeling much better.

Yeah, that time of the year again, and we all know what that means. Wink wink. Don't cry, it will be another time of the year soon.

Cry, over someone I never met? I don't even know her name. It wasn't my wife that went and died on me.

Uh, don't cry over me, I was talking about crying over the.. sniff sniff.. time of year. I know you don't give a rats ass about anyone but yourself. Feel bad for your wife who hasn't went and died on you.

Of course, this overblown, denialist, double down freak out you're having over it speaks volumes to anyone who's ever dealt with a 5 year old trying to lie their way out of accountability.

And let me guess -you didn't use the word "thonking" either, right?

I thonk I did that on purpose to mock anyone who noticed. You won!!!