TakeYouToTasker

If I may interject, I'm not sure why people's reception of President Obama on a message board has any bearing on anything else. The board's non-libertarian/non-classical liberal posters here tend to lean to the right, which will demonstrate bias; and B-Man is a right wing infotainment aggregator. I'd also be interested in hearing what "lesser" or "similar" things President Obama was pilloried for. The only thing I care about, the only thing, is the weaponization of the federal bureaucracy against the people it proposes to rule, and the rigging of federal elections in defiance of the will of the people. That's it.

Do you believe we should have a religious litmus test for residence, citizenship, and participation in government? Then I challenge you to re-examine exactly what you're advocating.

By what logic do those on the left refuse to believe that the party that rigged their own primary did not attempt to rig the federal election?

How do you feel about those espousing the implementation of fascist dictatorship?

This is exactly correct. Further, not only is it the same logic; but it also legitimizes their tactics.

Rights are rights, Joe, not permissions and privileges. The right to hold and espouse good and moral opinions is the same as the right to espouse bad and immoral opinions. They are two sides of the same coin, and you cannot have one without the other. We are, once again, revisiting your desire to have an official government ministry of truth which is vested with the power to criminalize thought and speech. This is no different, in any way, than the campus SJWs seeking to silence conservatives over what they deem to be "hate speech".

... That's insane, Joe. You're arguing for a foreign government to restrict the freedom of speech of a member of Congress through threats of violence. That's an act of war, Joe. The US would be obligated to respond. This is one of the worse opinions I've seen you argue.

Why? Are you barking for a war with Israel? We'd be 100% obligated to go the war with them if their intelligence services targeted a member of Congress for assassination, Joe. So congratulations on your desire to see the United States fling itself into war with one of it's allies over a moron like Rashida Tlaib, I guess?

This was kind, and I am touched. Thank you.

No one was disparaged, no one was bullied. Comedy and tragedy are two sides of the same coin. All humor comes from human frailty, and every one of us is frail in some way or another. You are taking very personally something that was not intended that way, and yes, it is far too politically correct. The only person who made anything personal in the exchange was you, when you denigrated someone else's character over something benign. Again, you're entitled to your feelings, but your experiences don't make you correct.

If we take your sentiments here, and extrapolate, then every joke is in bad taste and should not be made. I don't find this to be a reasonable position. Comedy is found in tragedy and the absurdity of life. I deeply understand that this is extremely personal to you, but that doesn't make you correct. It may not be funny to you, but that doesn't mean it's not funny to others; just as you might find humor in jokes which they may not for personal reasons. At the same time others whom may have faced blindness may in fact find them funny, indicating that your experience doesn't lend you voice to speak for everyone in that sub-group. Finally, I don't think it's a good look to admonish or shame others for making jokes. No one made the joke at your expense, it wasn't personalized, and you weren't being bullied. No one was even aware of your history in this regard until your brought it out after the fact. Your reaction was no different than that of Social Justice Warriors shouting down comedians or speakers on campuses. I generally enjoy the content you create here, as we've discussed in the past, but not in this case.

One more consequence of banging Charlie Sheen.

From the article: “There’s a difference between being an activist and a lawmaker in Congress.” No, there isn't. There used to be, but not anymore.

@Deranged Rhino How did the structure of this post even happen ? Do you have a time machine?

Exactly correct. Wait until this cascades down onto the single payer healthcare systems of the welfare states of Europe, and begins to act as a final nail in their coffins.

I reject your argument as it works with the assumption that our government should be funded to or beyond current levels.

Do you know who coined the phrase "fake news", and in what context?

Agreed, but only if there is an over-zealous, gun grabbing prosecutor. My reasoning being that if it was reasonable for the child to shoot the intruder if he was in the home or facing him, with no culpability for the step-father, this becomes an arena where you have to make allowances for a minor's discretion. A legal decision based around punishing a parent for when a state lawyer thinks is it reasonable for an 11 year old child to fear for their lives in a home invasion is a bad legal decision if it decides to do so; and I think it likely a jury would agree with me.

Our legal system makes very different accommodations for minors than it does for adults. I think one can also make a reasonable argument that parents who have firearms in the home should teach their children about their proper use as tools, while also understanding that children may perceive risks to their own lives and personal safety differently. An over-zealous, gun grabbing prosecutor may decide to try to make an example out of someone here, but I think it will be hard to get a conviction. If the child shot the intruder while he was facing him, or in the house, do you think there would be a case?

I think it could probably be reasonably argued that the child feared for his own life after suffering through a home invasion, regardless of the state of the intruder when he was shot.

I found it through an off-site web search. I'm guessing SDS chose to limit the depth of intra-site searches for some reason or another. I encourage you to read it.

Less than a year ago I made a very detailed post on these boards outlining the very real, very massive, human trafficking and child sex slavery realities on our southern border, but I can't seem to find it. I included tons of data, all fully sourced; and it now seems to be gone. I conducted a search for the phrase "human trafficking" under my user name, and only four instances of me using that phrase were returned. I think anyone here who knows my posting history would find that very suspicious.

It's what happens when you align yourself with the worst sorts of monsters because they help you execute a plain as day, fully in view cover-up of the murder of one of your young female staffers in your congressional office.

Civil rights aren't rights. They are privileges. The term "civil rights" is just another example of a concept being modified ("civil" modifies "rights"), stripping away the meaning of the original modified term while attempting to borrow from it it's gravity, much in the same way "social justice" has nothing to do with the concepts of justice.

Those aren't rights then. Those are civil privileges which can be striped away without any moral opposition.