Those of us who are not in lockstep with the Socialist Democrat Party are being called names again.
In 2016 Candidate Clinton called us deplorables. In 2020 Speaker of the House Pelosi declares us enemies of the state.
The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.
Re: 2016: Deplorables 2020: Enemies of the state
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2020 8:44 pm
by Paladin
2020 election appears to be between the Americans and the Corrupt/Statist/Marxist/GunGrabing/Rioters. Not much of a choice, but it makes it easy to know that I NEED TO VOTE and WHO TO VOTE FOR.
Re: 2016: Deplorables 2020: Enemies of the state
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2020 10:25 pm
by jason812
Once again, the liberals are protecting what they are onto the rest of us.
Re: 2016: Deplorables 2020: Enemies of the state
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2020 7:06 am
by The Annoyed Man
Nancy Pelosi caught on business security camera violating California law shuttering hair salons, without wearing a mask:
Politico's reporting on it: did the salon break California law by videotaping someone without their consent? You can’t make this kind of comedy gold up.
Re: 2016: Deplorables 2020: Enemies of the state
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2020 9:32 am
by BSHII
The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 7:06 am
Nancy Pelosi caught on business security camera violating California law shuttering hair salons, without wearing a mask:
Politico's reporting on it: did the salon break California law by videotaping someone without their consent? You can’t make this kind of comedy gold up.
The answer to the second Tweeter's question is "Yes," of course. California law only requires two-party consent to record confidential communications. A "confidential communication" is "any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering . . . or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded." Walking around in someone else's business is not a "confidential communication," and a business owner certainly does not need guests' consent to record surveillance footage in her own business.
Re: 2016: Deplorables 2020: Enemies of the state
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2020 9:33 am
by BSHII
Grayling813 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 11:57 am
Those of us who are not in lockstep with the Socialist Democrat Party are being called names again.
In 2016 Candidate Clinton called us deplorables. In 2020 Speaker of the House Pelosi declares us enemies of the state.
The Democrats have gone full Bolshevik, so the "enemies of the state" language fits.
Re: 2016: Deplorables 2020: Enemies of the state
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2020 10:36 am
by Rafe
Here's a simple little Google search for "Nancy Pelosi lie"; you don't get 2,250 results for that if she's a paragon of honor and morality. So much is saved for posterity on YouTube nowadays. Somebody (maybe a Trump campaign staffer?) who has the hours in a day to do this should look through the archives and put together a montage of Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer, and show them saying one thing in one clip and then in the next clip saying exactly the opposite or denying ever having said it. Well, thinking about it, that would be such a long video that we'd have to split it up not only by person, but by year...
Enjoy Tucker Carlson's 3-minute take on Pelosi's salon visit:
Re: 2016: Deplorables 2020: Enemies of the state
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2020 11:11 am
by JRG
Also, didn't Kamala Harris already say that "they" would hunt us down........every one of us!!
The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 7:06 am
Nancy Pelosi caught on business security camera violating California law shuttering hair salons, without wearing a mask:
Politico's reporting on it: did the salon break California law by videotaping someone without their consent? You can’t make this kind of comedy gold up.
The answer to the second Tweeter's question is "Yes," of course. California law only requires two-party consent to record confidential communications. A "confidential communication" is "any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering . . . or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded." Walking around in someone else's business is not a "confidential communication," and a business owner certainly does not need guests' consent to record surveillance footage in her own business.
IIRC, there's been some ruling about being allowed to record public servants without getting their permission.
Not sure whether that requires "on the job" to be valid...
Either way..... I dare you to bring charges against the salon owner... That would be interesting.
