TakeYouToTasker

Had a big post ready to go, but happy to cede duties to @MAJBobby Go Bills!

Repository for all of Buffalo’s signings

Works for servicing waitstaff, not so much for actual bartenders.

It is absurd to label "obstruction" Trump's frustrations at being investigated for charges he knew, and he knew the investigators knew, he did not commit. If there was no underlying crime, what justice did he obstruct?

Obstruction? Walk this out with me: It has been demonstrated, and you will see prosecution, that the President was set up by individuals who knowingly perpetrated a fraud, inventing “evidence of a crime” from whole cloth, in order to initiate a Special Counsel to go digging for crimes in the hopes of destroying the President and forcing him out of office. What you are calling obstruction is him defending himself from fraudulent charges both he and his accusers knew to be false, as well as criminal; which now we all know to be 100% baseless, while acting within the legal purview of his delegated powers. Explain the obstruction.

The President will not be forced out of office, no matter how much you'd like to see a coup attempt successfully executed. He'll be President until 2024. He has no misdeeds. He's the duly elected President, who has been subjected to an illegal, yet ridiculously comprehensive investigation which turned up no criminal wrong doing. The investigations were based on fraud. The investigators rigged faux evidence out of whole cloth in order to create the appearance of a crime, in order that they could launch an investigation in the hopes of finding crimes not related to their stated purpose (which they knew to be bogus since they themselves created it) in order to force the President out of office, which is a coup attempt. The entire thing was a sham, and it was highly criminal. Treason and sedition can carry the death penalty. Actually, your argument is precisely that the United States Intel apparatus is above the law. You insist that they should be able to conduct fraudulent and criminal investigations which are unconstitutional in order to overthrow a domestic government which they disagree with. You say lots of very stupid things, and have lots of bad opinions; so this doesn't surprise me.

No, Bob; though folks holding to your line of thinking do deserve it. But you go right on believing that it’s all well and good to have the Federal government illegally and unConstitutionally weaponized against a duly elected President, in order to defy the will of the People and force him out of office, and pretend it’s not #######s like you who are causing the problem and undoing the entire liberal construct of self-determination. Moron.

Bob, you're about to get your ass kicked. You're too dumb to know it, but everyone else will enjoy it. Yes, Bob. Sans evidence. There is no evidence of any crime having been committed by the President of the United States. There never was. In fact, an 18 month long open ended fishing expedition, consuming $30m on tax payer dollars, run by a team of vocally anti-Trump partisans, chartered for the purpose of finding some sort of criminality conducted by the President or members of his family, turned up exactly zero evidence of any sort of criminal wrong doing. None. Incredibly important to note that this probe turning up zero evidence is evidence itself that there was never evidence enough in the first place to begin a probe; but rather instead is evidence of criminality perpetrated against the President in order to force him from office (a coup). And the probe itself was, in fact, so broad that it turned up evidence of a lawyer committing tax fraud over the use of NYC taxi medallions, and led to the seizure of all of his files from his office, home, and a hotel. This lawyer was the personal lawyer of President Trump, sometimes called his "fixer". This raid turned up nothing. No evidence of criminal wrong doing on the part of the President. Further, the Federal government already has the President's tax returns in their entirety for as long as he's been paying taxes. He filed them, as do you and I, with the IRS. President Obama's IRS, in fact, which was routinely weaponized against conservatives. And never, not even once, was there a criminal issue discovered with his taxes. Bob, there are no serious people asking legitimate questions about these things. Only criminals complicit in the coup attempt and cover-up, and brain dead partisan morons following them over a cliff like drooling lemmings. They've already investigated and turned up nothing. ... You are mind numbingly stupid. You aren't even making your own argument anymore, and have instead presented evidence bolstering mine. From your (plagiarized) quote: "Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation." Show me, within that quote which defines the purview of Congressional oversight, where Congress is empowered to conduct investigations into the life of a person when they were a private citizen, related in no way to the Executive branch. You can't because they don't have that just authority. Stop being a partisan piece of ***** and destroying this country.

This is a very stupid post. No, Congress does not enjoy a supervisory role over the Executive Branch. The Constitution lays out, in painstaking detail, the prescribed role of each branch of government. No, President Trump has not overstepped the modern boundaries of his office, but rather has shrunk the purview of the Executive Branch by drastically reducing the regulatory state, and enforcing the law as written placing the onus back on Congress to legislate. No, it is not acceptable in a free society purporting to operate on democratic principals for investigative or legislative bodies to use the powers of government to open investigations into individuals, sans evidence, in search of possible crimes.

... Nuke it from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

The purpose of argument is to determine what is correct, while the purpose of debate is to win.

The entire purpose of argument/discussion is first to vet the merits of your case against counter argument in order to test it’s validity, and then to be persuasive with it if it proves logical and valid. If that’s not your purpose than what is?

Philosophically it’s a very easy question to answer: Those whom have refused to abide by the philosophies holding to the ideal that rights are immutable and intrinsic, and must not be violated, cannot logically claim protection through them. Those whom have broken the civil codes which bind us should have no say in making them.

In order to bring the real bad actors, and their crimes, into public view before the indictments start being handed out. It will still be framed by the left as political retribution, but this will mitigate that attempt to some degree.

And it’s being reinjected into the conversation purposefully.

Under-rated post right here. Top.

Read the whole thread.

“We’re going to ban plastic, glass, and steel in our skyscrapers.” And construct them from what, Mayor? Adobo? Mud and thatch?

Bob, what in the world makes you think it’s even remotely acceptable for US investigative bodies to initiate probes into Americans with no prior evidence of wrongdoing on which to predicate the investigation, with the hopes of turning up criminal activity? Thats the antithesis of justice, and is incompatible with a free society which elects it’s leaders using democratic principles.

Read the whole thread.

You‘re a public school teacher? Would you be willing to engage me in PMs?