TakeYouToTasker

When I was growing up, any time I was physically reprimanded by a teacher or other authority figure, I never would have dreamed of telling my parents about it because they would have punished me again. And to your point, that's entirely correct.

Nor would any experience you have save you from the maelstrom to follow. Violence is not always, or even usually the answer. But, as a wise man once said here: "When the only tool you have is a shotgun, every problem looks like a tranny."

Increased educational requirements and more competitive compensation would certainly lead to a larger talent pool, though I'm not sure it would solve the problem of a conflict of interest driven by the mutual exclusivity of self-preservation and duty. I'm also not a proponent of a doctrine that when faced with a problem, any change from the status quo is a good change. Many changes are worse, and don't actually work to address the issue of concern. Again, I agree and acknowledge that there are problems. I'm just not sure that what you've submitted solves them.

I find LEOs to be a very odd quirk in both the liberal and conservative views of government. All police are, is the enforcement arm of the executive branch. Yet liberals, who constantly scream out for more government, and more laws condemn them, while conservatives, whom are otherwise naturally distrustful of expressions of power by the state, revere them. Lost in this is the middle way in which police are both human (therefor fallible), and necessary to a society of laws. Also lost is that police have a terribly dangerous job which, in much of it's execution, requires them to have complete trust and faith in their co-workers. This is difficult to achieve in an environment in which those on the force don't protect and insulate each other from their failures as individuals, which necessarily pits them, on occasion, against the interest of those they are supposed to serve by creating a conflict of interest between their own self preservation instincts and their duty. I'm not sure what the solution is.

Well said.

No, no it's not at all. For anyone to believe this to be the case, they would first have to take small soundbites from the overall hearing completely out of context; and would be required to believe that the role of federal judges is one of primary investigation, and to conspire with the prosecution against the defense. Both of which are absurdities.

Politfact is absolutely not what you describe them as. It has been documented as projecting a fairly severe left-wing bias, while promoting itself as non-partisan. IE. It's a political spin machine used to deceive. You're a shill.

This guy Ted who works under one of my peers. He's routinely behind on any and all projects regardless of size and scope, isn't terribly likable, and insists on being called "Teddy" even though he's well into his 40's.

Wait... What? You think what federal judges do, at sentencing hearings no less, is to act as preliminary investigators; and then to conspire against the defense? No wonder you're posts of late have been so stupid.

I don't pretend to speak for anyone else, though I would suggest reporting to geo-political norms combined with examining gradients of "interference". For instance, I'd place things like purchasing a few thousand dollars worth of Facebook adds and social media coordination at or near the bottom tier, and not get overly worked up about it no matter what nation did it, because while less than ideal, it's not overly grotesque. I'd place things like actively staging a place coup in and attempt to rig a federal election in coordination with the outgoing government, the full might of the surveillance state, and their preferred successor near the other end; and would consider it an act of war with severe consequences reccommended.

Again, you're hands down the stupidest person who posts here on any of the subforums. Every few years I go back and revisit the posts of individuals I had prior blocked to see if their posting habits have risen to a standard worth tolerating. You failed yet again. Moron.

President Trump hasn't consolidated power or acted beyond his Constitutional mandates. He has actively decentralized power, and has taken direct strides to return government to it's formerly discarded system of checks and balances. He is forcing Congress to actually legislate, and has dismantled the executive bureaucratic state which is the mechanism past President have used to abuse their power. He has appointed unheard of amounts of Origionalist federal Judges whose judicial philosophy adheres to a strict separation of powers. He has taken incredible strides to reign in our a run-away intelligence agencies which have a long history of subverting the democratic process at home and abroad. In short, not only has he done absolutely nothing approaching an abuse of power, he's bucked the trend of every President since John Adams and reduced the scope of his own power. But then, why am I making this argument to you. You don't speak/read English fluently, and are too stupid to do much more than drool.

As I said, I think anyone making arguments surrounding the intentions of the Founders should absolutely read the primary sources and relevant history; but the particular argument that this fool is making doesn't even require that much: it only requires understanding how English works, and being about to read above a 6th grade level.

You don't even need to read the primary sources or the history (though anyone making arguments about it certainly should), you just need to be able to read above a 6th grade level and know how to diagram a sentence. Here: https://selfeducatedconservative.wordpress.com/2nd-amendment/

I think what he's saying is that the report actually exists, it's existence isn't fiction, whereas it's contents may be.

It's not "semantics" you ***** retard. You've constructed an argument entirely reliant on the negative emotional appeal certain words generate because of what they mean, and are then attempting to change those words definitions after the fact. This is stupid, and so are you.

I can honestly say I'd rather read the combined lifetimes works of gatorman than have any kind of exchange with EII. Gatorman is stupid, but at least he's mostly coherent, and I can tell what he's directing his stupidity at.

He is the single most irretrievably stupid person I've encountered here, and was the very first person I blocked on the board. I responded to him for the first time in several years very recently.

I did. I was commenting on the description provided in the article rather than your very apt comical rejection of the description.

The house has a five car garage, and a zero edge gravity pool with fully stocked bar underwater bar contained underneath a thick glass half sphere at the bottom of the pool. It's also not single story. That description is hilarious.

One of the most stunning homes I've ever been in was constructed almost entirely of rammed earth and glass. https://www.amlu.com/2018/08/21/rammed-earth-modern-in-arizona-by-kendle-design-collaborative/

No, not in regards to a well regulated militia. That's not how the English language works. Just because you'refunctionally illiterate and don't know how to diagram a sentence doesn't mean that those of us with reading levels of 6th grade or higher have to pretend that you have any idea what you're talking about.

This is one of the best posts I've ever read on this website, or anywhere really. @Nanker

This is stupid. The government already has his taxes. That's who you give your filing to: the federal government. If Mueller wants/wanted to see the President's tax returns for the last 40+ years, he can do so.