WhitewalkerInPhilly

I would feel worse for that, had there not been a bipartisan compromise offered, one that met Trumptard's demands, only he threw one of his patented little temper tantrums. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2018/01/24/white-house-the-grahamflakedurbin-immigration-proposal-is-dead-to-us-n2438713 lol. The brain parasites that riddle you guys must be hitting your memory centers extra hard

Lol, you think that people might seriously consider that.

Well, here's the "libertarian argument" I had earlier that you seem to have missed

Ahhhh, your favorite boogeyman is here! Show me on the doll where the bad man touched you. But no, I went over the rankings on Politfact, the non-profit non-partisan fact checkers. They rate news channels, don't you know? It turns out, they actually rank what the pundits say on the major news channels: ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS and Fox https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/ CNN is no prize, but Fox is easily the least truthful.

Hey, show a fraction of evidence, and maybe you won't sound like you stroke off with a fake Charlie chaplain mustache on while reading Mein Kampf. Come on, this is the board where people love Trump in spite of multiple fraud lawsuits, audio recordings bragging about sexual assault, repeated cases of him failing to pay workers and recordings of him constantly contradicting himself. Maybe...try to hold ol' Soros to half of that standard of trust.

As opposed to Fox News? The least accurate and truthful, as ranked by non-partisan fact checkers. Or maybe Breitbart and Infowars for you. How do you like your dose of insane conspiracy theories with zero fact checking? For saying "Oh, I realize that you only did the terrible things you did while you were working for the Trump campaign, and not while in the White House" Yeah, that should fill you with confidence. [/s]

If I wanted accurate, factual reporting, why on Earth would I go to Fox News? The BBC and NPR are considerably less biased, and have a far better track record with fact based reporting.

To criticize him? No. To talk about how he is secretly conniving and using his wealth to hire fake protestors to disagree with Republican politicians, or spread a widely debunked rumor that he was a Nazi collaborator, that he planed and organized "the caravan" to help perpetuate "White Genocide"...all without a shred of proof...maybe a bit.

I am practically busting a gut laughing at all the people talking about the "fake new media" about how they are the enemy of the people, and that the judge seems to think that he's been blackmailed. You want to know what the judge thought? https://www.npr.org/2018/12/18/677558000/federal-judge-delays-michael-flynn-sentencing-in-case-of-lying-to-feds

I've noticed actually a few false dichotomies from both advocated and critics of police. For advocates, the divide is that either you let the police do their job, or you let rampant lawlessness go free. If you listen to the most recent season of Serial, the head of Cleveland Police Officers union is asked, regarding the fatal shooting of a 12 year old with a BB gun (Tamir Rice) that zero mistakes were made and the only way to avoid fatal shooting of unarmed civilians is "we don't show up". Zero amount of oversight is needed. Nothing needs to change, other than the public needs to hand over more money. For critics, I've heard "There's no such thing as a good cop", in that there is no such thing as a good cop, because good cops allow for the existence of bad cops. Never mind the fact that they have zero ways to personally fix that. I don't mean to go all Centrist here, but come on, there has to be a middle ground where we recognize that police ought to be better compensated for the risks they take, but that also with the increased authority and visibility, that they have to be held than a higher standard. When we see cases where you see police planting evidence when they think their body cams are off, or you see incidents where suspects are beaten to a bloody pulp, or a legal gun owner is shot and killed after informing the officer that he has his weapon in the car and the excuse is "I smelled the distinct odor or marijuana" or "I saw a bulge" and there are zero consequences, I don't understand how people don't see a need for higher standards and training. Maybe, but we have heard from a lot of vets from Iraq and Afghanistan that the rules of engagement were figuratively beat into them. Proper threat escalation and determination was a vital part of their everyday life. Unless you are saying that the US is more dangerous than Iraq or Afghanistan, I have to imagine that we could take that training and apply it here.

Donald Trump 2013: "When they talk about the government shutdown, they're going to be talking about the president of the United States, who the president was at that time. They're not going to be talking about who was the head of the House, the head the Senate, who's running things in Washington. Donald Trump Early 2018: " Democrats are holding our Military hostage over their desire to have unchecked illegal immigration. Can't let that happen!' 'They could have easily made a deal but decided to play Shutdown politics instead" Donald Trump December 11 2018: "I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck," the president said. "So I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I'm not gonna blame you for it. The last time you shut it down it didn't work. I will take the mantle of shutting down. Donald Trump December 13th 2018: Democrats are only doing this to play politics! Let's not do a shutdown Democrats! How anyone here is able to ignore how much this man talks out of his ass is beyond me.

I hear that weed really helps salve people who are delusional. Would you please speak to that? In short...you have cartoons, because the facts show how deluded you are

Ok. Name the press. If this is "hot off the lib NPC press", tell me what it's from. Because actual, conservative government analysis couldn't come from me unless I know better than you. Which, let's be honest here, is not that hard Dude, there's a reason why I'm an independent. Just because Trump is unspeakably moronic doesn't make the Dems magically brilliant. They are simply the most ready way to avoid disaster. They deserve to be called out for hypocrisy and bad ideas. I dont see how continued examination, debate and rejection of ideas is a bad thing.

I'm out of state...and well, my partner does not agree to being non-monogamous. I do appreciate the offer through, but if I want to branch out, I do have some close friends who have already offered. I do appreciate reaching out though!

*nods* alright. I'm happy that you can be free now. I do legit owe you one for calling that Allen was a better option than Tyrod. ...wait, what I am doing, talking football on a football site ?

It's fortunate then, that I have realized that I no longer need to take you seriously. You are too far gone.

In the most obvious riposte: If the US government is already succeeding using $1.6 billion is border security funding, why do you need $5 billion? Is that worth stopping all security over? To which I go to the itemized reasons this makes no sense: A) Can you actually give me data as to how physical security has stopped crossings? This is a legitimate question, not a trap. I am rather curious if you have any facts that can be verified. B) Bulls**t, the Dems can't explain why they don't want a border wall. Holy hell, this is the easier argument for a libertarian to make. It is: A massive government works project Will require the seizure of land from private citizens via eminent domain violates state's rights, as the federal government will be overriding the enumerated powers that they are supposed to have regarding enforcement even if it is built, it will require continual manpower assignment and maintenance you can do far better national security policing by taking equivalent funds and giving them to intelligence agencies and law enforcement a static emplacement like a wall is useless against catapults shooting drugs over the border, vast networks of cartel tunnels, air drops, naval crossings, smuggling through our ports and is just an god awful waste of money for an extremely limited and stationary structure. I have long held that the Wall is all the stupidest parts of Democratic mismanagement, only now it's the Republican base's turn to be idiots.

It's so cute when you metaphorically suck each other off, and project your true feelings into this safe space. Good for you both! Throw off the shackles off the moralizing of your upbringing and embrace your true desires! Be liberated!

Well, I have to admit that Schumer is laying it on thick, and I have little love for these two. But let's give credit where credit is due. Mr. 45 has owned any impending shutdown. https://thepoliticalinsider.com/trump-shutdown/ All I'm going to say is this: while the Republicans control both houses of Congress, and the executive branch until January 3rd...when it will control two of those three. If they can't do anything until then, then yeah, the president needs to own up to his comments about how shutdowns are the president's fault.

Yeah...every so often I have to remind myself when I find myself overwhelmed, incredulous at how low people in this board stoop... And then I remember that I have boyst as a unit of measure.

Look Sherpa, Boyst is already on the record that he thinks that's it's ok to run people over in the streets. You think that this is hyperbole. It is not. Well, that explains what happens when Ohio goes red ? I'm joking. People don't take that joke as a reason to disenfranchise all the poor people in Ohio.

I'm not. If he had tried that in NY, I would have expected terrorism charges. The scum sucker deliberately targeted and murdered unarmed, peaceful protestors, as part of a radical hate group. If he had been part of ISIS, we would not have heard the end of it. I can acutely remember people like Boyst defending him (and he still, if memory serves, is in favor of vehicular homicide) and telling us to wait for judgement. NOW can we call the white nationalist movement a bunch of sniveling, cowardly murderers?

Dude, I usually respect you, so I will actually try to respond seriously and without snark. In Indonesia, there is violent, anti-Muslim harrassment carried out by Buddhists, and endorsed by their leaders. No, seriously: http://theconversation.com/violent-buddhist-extremists-are-targeting-muslims-in-sri-lanka-92951 If I have gathered anything from competitive religion, it is this: some asshat can abuse any philosophy for violent, criminal ends. With that in mind, it begs the question: why do give any of these ideas special treatment? Build the wall between superstition and civic government. Because every door you make for a Buddhist or a Christian with special "we have to respect this, its sacred" juju, gives it to radical Muslims, Satanists and *gasps* atheists.

Athiest zealot: Dick on a computer, is slightly rude Christian Zealot: "Well, I don't care what "science" and "medical experts" say, the magic medications my head spirit guy claims kill babies! Don't doubt me! My faith says you can't doubt me!!! Judge Kavanaugh says you can't doubt me" (Note: he indeed ruled for this magic spirit fallacy) Muslim Zealot: "Let's blow things up" So....maybe there is a gradient

Dude...I think you are barking up the wrong tree. I am fully aware that social groups commonly steal from each other. This thing was about the "IMMA THUMP MA BIBLE, AND THAT MAKES ANY THOUGHT IN ME HEAD ENOUGH FOR THE GUV-MENT!!!" group, and the fact that they chose the guy who absolutely does not follow the bible drum they play.