Comments by "@level Joe" (@leveljoe) on "CNN"
channel.
-
155
-
38
-
25
-
19
-
18
-
16
-
13
-
13
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hcaballero1992
lol
No, it's not bigoted.
I could play your game and whine that you called Vindman "him/his" when he has a name and his gender was not expressed in the video, but that would either be silly or you too are a bigot.
You said, "Be a man..." where did I list my gender?
There you are being a bigot again!
For all you know I may be a Ukrainian, are you saying Ukrainians are rats?
You're a bigot times 3!
But I won't play your game because I'm not a passive aggressive child.
...anyway...
I'm not hiding anything. If I wanted to I could easily delete the post. My words are still posted sunshine.
Vindman is from the Ukraine, is he not?
Vindman tried to prevent the Ukraine from investigating Biden, did he not?
I never mentioned Vindman's loyaties, did I?
I NEVER mentioned anyone trusting or not trusting Vindman, did I?
You are bashing me for assumptions that you THINK I made, all while making your own.
If you're going to behave like a moron, at least try to be soft and quiet about it...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
News flash....
Disgruntled employee is upset.
Film at 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 1, 2, 3, 4...........…......
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@swirvinbirds1971 Trump used his executive authority to prohibit the communication of information (by Vindman), that he (the executive branch) determines to be classified, sensitive, top secret, or not to be disclosed to anyone without prior authorization.
He did not follow the president’s directive.
Trump was at the top of his chain of command.
He was not "sacked". He was moved mid-assignment and was not promoted.
Vindman torpedoed his own career by testifying.
As for Yevgeny Vindman (the brother), this is why he was fired...
"LTC Vindman is a hard working officer, but he frequently lacks judgment and has
difficulty understanding the appropriate role of a lawyer in an organization. He fully
supports SHARP, EO, and EEO.
During the prior reporting period and early portions of the reporting period, LTC
Vindman performed his duties satisfactorily. Over time, LTC Vindman displayed
increasingly poor judgment and failed to learn from his mistakes. On multiple occasions, his unprofessional demeanor made NSC staff feel uncomfortable. Despite
express guidance from his supervisor, he continued to add himself to meetings with
senior NSC staff where he did not add value. LTC Vindman’s substandard performance – his lack of judgment, failure to communicate well with his superiors, and
inability to differentiate between legal and policy decisions – cause him to lose the
trust of NSC senior leadership.
LTC Vindman is an attorney of average ability, but he lacks judgment on critical
issues. In a stressful and high-pressure work environment, his performance did not
live up to the extremely high standards of the NSC Legal Affairs Directorate. Owing to the early termination of LTC Vindman’s detail to the NSC, it was not possible
to prepare a DAForm67-10-1A.
And this time, Mr. Eisenberg wrote:
In the prior reporting period, LTC Vindman demonstrated potential, but he did not
grow professionally after the extension of his detail assignment to the NSC. With
additional counseling and experience, LTC Vindman’s performance may improve.
He would benefit from additional experience in a slower-paced work environment subject to less pressure and scrutiny. In time, he may become a better attorney."
Any other questions?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@popperpoppler4569 You need to focus and read those cases before you comment on what the rulings indicate.
One more time, the SC did not change its opinion/interpretation on the second amendment.
They let the states decide (not them). They did not in any way make it easier or more difficult, or broaden or narrow the definition or practice. That was left to state governments (states rights).
Then...
The SC removed that ability from the states because they were implementing unconstitutional practices. They did not broaden or narrow the second amendment by definition or practice. They merely prevented the states from trampling on rights they had no authority to.
What's more...
The SC said (and im paraphrasing) the constitution does not give rights directly because rights exist without it. The rights predate the constitution and are not open to adjustments or limits by the government.
It's funny that now the evidence that you used to support your argument is meaningless because you all of the sudden don't agree with the definition.
You started this with...
"...the interpretation has really only gotten broader over the last century or so."
Your words, but now your saying they were actually more strict up to the Mcdonald case you provided as support. That's much less than a century, wouldn't you say?
This conversation should be linear in nature, but your "evidence" timeline is all over the place and in no way supports your comments.
I said, "How has the interpretation become broader?"
Only then did you mention "scope" and you keep trying to use that instead. You even said, "I actually agree with your interpretation", but here we still are...
You said their (the SC) interpretation became broader in this case. How? As they always have (supported by cases you provided) they believe that the second amendment is unlimitable by them, the states, or federal government.
You can't just cherry pick a few parts that sound good from the cases. The basis of the rulings are there.
They didn't simply say "yes", "no", or "this is what we are going to do", they said why and the why's matter. The why's are always consistent in regards to the 2nd because it is not to be infringed upon. I'm certain you know what that means when it says "shall not be infringed". They certainly do.
The SC never said you can't carry in public. They never said firearms must stay in the home.
They never said they must be registered. That has only come from lower courts in the states.
Only lower courts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1