TakeYouToTasker

She’s qualified, but would she have been able to churn her own butter prior to the advent of the commercial cream separator in the late 1800’s?

OK, so which of you stupid bastards clapped? Admit to it.

Here’s the clip:

Imagine making an argument as dumb as the OP made, which requires, as he himself stated, that context is irrelevant. Good grief.

This is *far* more than I thought we’d see. I mean, we knew this, but I never thought everyone would be forced to see it.

... Wow... I... Wow...

Are you equating just with law? If so, you just sided with the British during the afore mentioned Boston Massacre. Well, I can explain why: it’s because you’re wrong, and are protecting a bias. If you’d like, I can dissect it.

Are you genuinely arguing that police only enforce just laws, that there are no laws they enforce which infringe on rights, and that if the laws they enforce do infringe on rights that they don’t do this by choice?

What are your thoughts on the Boston Massacre?

I’m referencing non-existent Russian impacts, smooth brain. I explained that to you.

I follow things out to their natural eventualities. This is the reduced logical outcome of your position.

I’m speaking to no-knock raids. If this wasn’t a no-knock raid, them I’m not speaking to this. However, I don’t trust the government to investigate itself, do you?

You say that as if I haven’t. Youve come down on the side of the state murdering innocents (not specific to this case). If the state insulates itself, then they aren’t “protecting and serving”; they’ve put themselves ahead of their citizens.

No-knocks are an atrocity. How does one distinguish them from a home invasion? And then the police justify shooting based on an individual’s response to a perceived home invasion? Also, it’s wildly short sighted to justify policy and law which, in all probability, will be unjustifiably detrimental to regular citizens, for the purpose of insulating agents of the state from harm.

This is the absolute correct take.

It’s a moronic take. I don’t treat politics like team sports. ————————— Shifting gears. Important reminders; a thread:

You just compared one of the most recognizable members of a foreign monarchy to a cab driver with a bumper sticker. If you really believe that, you’re a moron; and if you don’t then you’re nearly profoundly dishonest. There’s a reason numerous news outlets are fawning over Prince Harry campaigning against the President, and are not talking about British cab drivers. Its because he’s an extraordinary noteworthy foreign dignitary, and his reach is far longer than a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of Facebook adds purchased by a Russian troll farm. The truth is that you have no issue, at all, with foreign influence in our elections, just so long as it suits your preferences.

No, it’s not tomato/tomato. He’s a Prince, and the Duke of Sussex. He’s still sixth in line for the throne. He simply “stepped back from a senior role with the Royal family”. He still a Royal, and still a prominent foreign National. You are 100% wrong.

He did not “renounce his royal status”.

Prince Harry has been campaigning against President Trump. Wouldn’t this be classified as foreign interference in an election, leftists?

What Republicans should do, is amend the Constitution to make the popular vote compact illegal, solidify the SCOTUS as a 9, create national voter ID mandate, make mail in ballots illegal, and mandate the death penalty for election fraud.

Romney has decided to side with Republicans, and supports voting on Trumps nominee. They have the votes.

So, the President negotiated an end the Korean War. I’ve seen worse.

It really is. First they impeach him for conducting foreign policy. Now they’re floating doing it again for making judicial appointments. I mean, how dare he uphold his Oath of Office and meet his Constitutional responsibilities. How dare he!