Comments by "spaceflight101" (@spaceflight1019) on "MSNBC" channel.

  1.  @cristineconnell7803  History shows that the numbers of homeless, drug addicted people began increasing after the dismantling of the mental health care network.
    33
  2. How about "a person cannot be convicted of a crime without having been charged with said crime first"? There's a procedure for that.
    22
  3.  @chatryna  It's a fact that the reason those people were in the mental hospital is because they are unable to take care of themselves or make good decisions. When they were inside they were protected from themselves and the worst elements of society.
    18
  4. Actually, after a series of lawsuits the mental health care network, and the institutions, were dismantled. The "experts" say that it's better for their self-esteem to be out on the streets and not "warehoused" in an institution where all of their needs are met.
    14
  5. ​ @ricardocabeza6006 First, you have to be able to define what an insurrection is. Current examples are as follows: (1) The Whiskey Rebellion. (2) The Civil War.
    6
  6.  @chatryna  No, on average the numbers are the same, but now they're visible to everyone.
    6
  7. ​ @sasksunseekers5699 That's pretty funny. Name one trial, let alone two, where the testimony of expert witnesses was arbitrarily dismissed by the judge.
    5
  8. I look forward to both of these prognosticators having perfect brackets for the NCAA March Madness.
    4
  9. ​ @jim2376  Stick with your proven defective narrative. Here are the facts: None of the lenders were "cheated". None of the insurance companies were "cheated". None of the taxing bodies were "cheated". Every one of them performed due diligence and sent their own people who performed the valuations. This "trial" has shown the world (a) who owns real estate, (b) who rents and hasn't a clue about how the market works, and (c) who lives in Mommy's basement.
    4
  10. ​ @sasksunseekers5699 Rigged trial guaranteed to get the desired result. Name one other trial where the testimony of expert witnesses was arbitrarily dismissed by the judge. Immediate grounds for appeal. There is a procedure, and it was not followed.
    4
  11. Do your homework! Attributing a Teddy Roosevelt quote to Trump exposes the stupidity.
    3
  12.  @RealCaptainJaws  How does one not "accept" "the free education given to them as children"? I'm proud to be a skeptic and cynic, and a proud tradesman.
    3
  13.  @trump45and2zig-zags  Da, Comrade.
    3
  14. ​ Whogivsafukaboutmagatears The part of Article 14 that spells out due process. If due process doesn't apply here then it doesn't apply anywhere.
    3
  15. Define "poorly educated".
    2
  16.  @alexmendez3681  Sure they can. Environmental activists do it all the time until they get the results they want.
    2
  17.  @RichardServello  Funny that you mentioned Nancy Pelosi and most of Congress. Thanks.
    2
  18. Don't hold your breath...
    2
  19. ​ @MrSoonerCal Put more money in the working man's paychecks with the tax cuts. If you had a real job you wouldn't have to ask stupid questions.
    2
  20. ​ @johnpacella9519 Ummm..."vacant" equals "no one inside"?
    2
  21.  @alundrinusordway107  The judge expressed her opinion, but it's not a legal opinion. It does, however, lay bare any questions about her biases and compromised ability to be impartial.
    2
  22.  @kokopelli57  Worthy v. Barrett and Others is the name of the case.
    2
  23. ​ @jakewilliams1344 One of the dissenting justices pointed out that the action is a blatant violation of the Due Process clause, i.e., in order for the clause to apply the person in question must first be charged with insurrection, tried, and convicted. None of the above has happened. Besides, the SCOTUS can do what they did to avoid having to hear the myriad of lawsuits over the 2020 election: apply the requirements for having standing. To have standing, plaintiffs must be able to prove physical or economic damages.
    2
  24. ​ @machineunit Back up a little...has anyone been charged with insurrection?
    2
  25. "...lies about FBI agents..." Did they or didn't they have authorization to use deadly force? Yes or no. No excuses. No "justification". Yes or no?
    2
  26.  @Funknfritter  Don't care. If you live long enough you'll learn that everything is a rerun. Attributing it to Trump without first attributing it to Roosevelt is lazy.
    1
  27.  @ca6360  We also keep the lights on and the water flowing, among others. The elitists don't understand and don't care to understand.
    1
  28.  @Mr_Rouge  You're no different than the rest of your Bolshevik comrades. You haven't gotten a clue as to what Make America Great Again is about. You just keep throwing out the buzzwords that sound really good but you don't understand the real meaning of them not the history behind them. Making America great again is about things found in vintage Girl and Boy Scout handbooks. Most of it is based on simple human dignity; treat others as you'd have them treat you. Things like: Keeping an eye on your house when you are on vacation. Watching out for the seniors in the neighborhood, things like shoveling snow and cutting grass and checking to see if they have heat and AC. Holding a door open for someone. Letting someone out in traffic. Defensive driving. Things like that. But you Bolsheviks keep on spouting your garbage, because at the end of the day, we don't care about you.
    1
  29.  @stevedrinkard7297  It's not a 63, it's a 67. If you're going to pretend to be an expert do your homework before you run your mouth.
    1
  30.  @Mr_Rouge  Funny that they deleted my explanation about what Make America Great Again actually means. Maybe it was too long? Simple human respect and dignity, and personal responsibility are how we make America great again.
    1
  31.  @Mr_Rouge  Part of the problem is worrying about what other people do. I can't predict nor control what they do. I can only do what I can do. Just imagine how different things might be if someone in the checkout line had offered to front George Floyd. Ever watch "The Family Man"? By stepping up, Nicolas Cage's character defused a bad situation... and earned an unexpected glimpse by doing so.
    1
  32.  @Mr_Rouge  From your "replies", it's beyond obvious that you're not capable of understanding a concept understood by millions of Scouts and Guides around the world. Have a nice day ☺️.
    1
  33. ​ @76482 Not true. Research the resignation of Vice President Spiro Agnew.
    1
  34. ​ @EricCartman915 Established law states that a former president cannot be prosecuted for actions taken while president and part of his job. The courts are calling the rally "electioneering" despite the fact that the election took place two months earlier. The left is flailing, and failing.
    1
  35. @@AhStuttgart In what way did she make an "error of law"?
    1
  36.  @bluewolf5895  True. The difference is that in a criminal case the state is always the plaintiff. Citizens may sue one another, but they cannot lodge criminal charges. Good call.
    1
  37. Buy anything from Martha Stewart lately?
    1
  38. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws Section 1 comes before section 3 for a reason. The judge got it right.
    1
  39. So... everyone is Ok with ignoring a basic legal principle that was last tested against Nixon just to get Trump?
    1
  40. Everything this putz comes up with is a "threat to democracy". Get over it.
    1
  41. I believe that the word the left has been telling us is "cope".
    1
  42. ​ @ToadyMcgee They are. Problem is that they skipped Section One and went straight to the one they like, Section Three.
    1
  43. ​ @budman4224 True, but they all had a chance to defend themselves in court. The North Carolina sheriff comes to my mind.
    1
  44. ​ @ToadyMcgee I'll take Alan Dershowitz for $500, please.
    1
  45.  @ToadyMcgee  They do, but some deal with the fundamentals. If Section One doesn't apply to Section Three, then it shouldn't apply anywhere.
    1
  46.  @ToadyMcgee  But never a president. The sheriff, although he took no part in the fighting, still swore an oath of allegiance to the Confederacy and was ruled ineligible. But he STILL received due process. He had the opportunity to defend himself.
    1
  47. ​@@kilomintoni4556When George Washington was president. They've been lining their pockets ever since the Founders died.
    1
  48. ​ @mikawhofan Too late.
    1
  49.  @jmswillow5969  If you had a real job besides picking up pop cans, you'd understand. Penn State got most of the extra money; my Delaware Fund got the rest.
    1
  50. ​ @Haroun-El-Poussah Well...first off, you actually have to have had an insurrection, and there hasn't been one since the Civil War.
    1