TakeYouToTasker

So, you're calling people you disagree with liars without evidence, reporting to your confirmation biases. You're also denying that they themselves have the ability to soften on human freedom as the rest of society has, denying them humanity in that sense, placing them in a different box, again because of your confirmation biases.

So you're against personal and intellectual growth towards an accommodating position maximizing human freedoms, and minimizing government imposition of a moral code? Seems anti-intellectual to me. And that still doesn't explain your choice of phrasing: "old libertarian cheat".

... You think Canada is sending aid payments to the United States?

Speak to me about "the old libertarian cheat", and your choice in using that phrasing.

It's my largest motivator for a healthy lifestyle. I don't want to die and become a Democrat.

That's fine, but I think you care too much about things that aren't that important. It's just a football game. It doesn't matter. With that said:

Good grief, you really are that dumb. You're categorizing the President's legitimate and reported (to the IRS) business dealings dating back to 1995 as bribes? Being that stupid should hurt. Does it hurt?

Source? Nevermind, I found it. It was a statement by Chris Hayes of MSNBC who made a baseless charge without evidence; tweeting: “Would be nice to definitively rule out that the Saudis are paying the president massive bribes in exchange for tacit approval for murdering critics!” You are so ***** stupid it hurts.

... watch a game in which the Bills start Nathan Peterman at quarterback. I mean, I suppose I could decide to not watch, but I know that will because I enjoy watching the Bills. What other options are there? What do you plan to do? Burn down your own house in protest? Go out looting? It's a football game, man. It's just not that important.

Oh my...

Ah, the continuation of liberals long and storied history of conducting institutionalized social experiments on minorities.

Shitting. Shitting. Shitting. Huh... Looks like the bad word filter is broken again.

More likely to be reawakened by people shitting in the streets of San Francisco.

It's not only that she's a laughing stock, it's that she claimed membership of a marginalized community in order to afford herself privilege; making a mockery of that groups heritage in the process, and they have soundly rejected and rebuked her for it. It will be impossible to put herself forward as a champion of those same marginalized communities, which is the entire Critical Theory platform the Democrats are using, now that she's been exposed as using them, very publicly, as nothing more than a stepping stone for her own advancement. She won't be able to run on her record. What she's done is indefensible.

He won't change it. He's not interested in honest discussion. He's going to delete the thread once the worm turns.

She's done as a candidate. She may even be done in the Senate after this. There's no way she can run against this.

It's similar to the feeling I get when my wife, whom I've been with for decades, does something that makes me shake my head at how adorable she is even after all these years together. Only instead of being uplifting and romantic, it's tragic and face palm inducing.

... He's gone and done it... I didn't think it was possible to be that big of a moron, but here we are. Sometimes he still surprises me.

Watch the whole chess board, Joe.

Look to the Nations. None of them claim her because she doesn't pass their standards. Elizabeth Warren is not a Native American. She has less Native DNA than the average American if she's even Native American at all, which we don't know because the specific markers referenced are indicative of possible Mexican and South American sequencing[/i]. So it's not that the President gave himself wiggle room, it's that Warren is a liar, and has been exposed as such.

Again, tell me you aren't this stupid. He's a statistician who looks at data sets of similar DNA in order to track migration patterns of the groups holding those DNA similarities forensically. He doesn't test the DNA himself, he analyzes data sets to a very narrow and specific purpose. And in his very limited "expertise", he determined that Elizabeth Warren is not a Native American, which is what she claimed when she identified herself as Cherokee in order to afford herself privilege, but rather that some portion of her genetic background, less than that of the average American, "may" be Native American 6-10 generations prior. This is a very different argument than the "I am a Cherokee, and my great-great grandmother was full blooded Indian" claim she made. And again, she did not publish the results of the test, or seek any corroboration from actual field experts. Why do you believe that is? Why do you insist on being this stupid deliberately?