TakeYouToTasker

It's amazing how quickly the narrative has shifted from "Trump is a liar and a litteral Nazi!" to straight up pre-empitve damage control. That's beyond even the skill of Hakeem Olajuwan. That's an Obama level pivot.

And the guy on the bottom left is going to be pilloried on twitter by SJW's for not being willing to grab the ass of another man.

You believe that the Clintons and President Obama, the DNC, and the heads of their subordinate agencies thought they were fighting a Nazi takeover of government which is why they rigged the Democratic primary against Bernie Sanders, and spied on the campaign of Jeb Bush?

That's not what motivated them. What motivated them was the fact that they knew that he knew where all of the skeletons were buried, and that he would seek to dig them up and expose them to the light for the world to see. That's where the real shock to the system is going to come from. The fact that the Obama Administration, it's subordinate agencies, the Clinton Campaign and Foundation, and the DNC attempted to rig a federal election, and then orchestrate a coup attempt is shockingly terrible, but it's not nearly as shockingly terrible as why they did what they did. Very few people would willingly place their head into a noose simply because they disagree with policy decisions. That's what elections are for, and the peaceful transition of power affords them the opportunity to hold High Office in just four short years. Treason is reserved for covering up something much worse than the treason itself.

Rod Rosenstein is up to his eyeballs in this. And again, this was nothing more than a chartered fishing expedition purposed to bring down the sitting President. You cannot cling to "nation of laws" and defend the investigation.

No, Joe. There doesn't need to be payback. This isn't a Mel Gibson movie. Either we are governed by the rule of law, or we are not. If we are not, as you seem to prefer, then everything the Obama Administration, their subordinate agencies, the Clinton Campaign and Foundation, and the DNC has done is completely acceptable, because the law doesn't matter. If the law does matter, then the law needs to be followed in their prosecution, if, and only if, laws were broken, and only for people who actually broke the law.

Actually, on this Joe is 100% accurate. It was the entire foundation of the investigation. The fact that Mueller went on a fishing expedition and found other crimes unrelated to the President or to Russian "collusion" don't change that. You can't on one hand insist we're a nation of laws, and on the other hand support what Robert Mueller has been doing, which is an absolute perversion of the law.

You would be guilty of bribing a police officer for trying to excuse a crime you had committed. This is not the same as that. This is journalists, or if you prefer "journalists" (a point we can agree on) trying to favorably position themselves to receive information, having committed no prior crime, and certainly not trying to avoid prosecution for crimes they had not committed.

Normally I'd argue that one should read beyond the headlines when making their argument; but that doesn't apply here because you didn't even read the headline correctly

Took handouts is not the same as received handouts. And even so, that's not necessarily criminal action. You're doing exactly the same thing Robert Mueller is doing, which is a gross miscarriage of the law. You don't assume criminality and look for reasons to prosecute, you look and the facts, and you look at the law; and you objectively contrast those two things to determine if laws were broken, and who they were broken by. You're simply on a witch hunt guided by hatred of a certain ideology, wishing to stifle it, and embracing the tools of dictatorship to do so. You're no different from those you oppose in your methods; which is shameful because it is their methods which are the most abhorrent part of this whole event.

Listen, I know it's difficult for you to understand, but our Constitution has strict prohibitions against the creation of ex-post-facto laws. It's not even in an Amendment. It's in the body of the original document. You can try people for crimes they have committed, but you cannot try them for things that were not criminal when they did them. Even if you really don't like those things. Even if they are committed by Democrats. Now, if any journalists broke actual laws, not violated ethical standards, but broke laws you can prosecute them. If they did not, you can write new laws which criminalize their behavior, assuming those laws themselves don't violate the Constitution; and you can use those new laws to prosecute future crimes should they occur. What you absolutely cannot do is invent law, wholesale out of cloth, to prosecute people for crimes that do not exist. That is tyranny, and I will not stand by and watch one form of tyranny replace another, nor will I listen to idiots advocate for such action without shaming them for it.

The sentiment is absolutely reciprocated. In my experience I've found that while there are a nearly unlimited amount of pitfalls to the bottom, leading folks of nearly every background and persuasion into destitution, there are exceedingly few ladders to the top, and even for those few ladders which exist, the ability to expend an inordinate amount of individual effort and discipline to be able to jump up and grab that first rung is required. I don't think it's that unusual for people to build their assumptions on a foundation of what they know (or think that they know), based on the sum of their own experiences. And that's not a crime, or even something requiring apology; but rather is a norm of the human condition. We all see the world through the lens of our own experience. I simply appreciate the willingness of any other traveler to bend those assumptions a bit as new evidence presents itself. It's been nice to meet you along the road.

I'm thrilled to hear that you were able to salvage your relationship. I remember how distraught you were over the whole situation. God bless and God speed.

Looking out at my support staff, I'd say "both".

Because he never stabbed himself in the eye with a fork like McMahon did.

The spread this moral and social rot has is incredible. Today my employer's office of "Diversity Recruiting" announced plans for it's mandatory upcoming "unconscious bias" training.

We're already well past that point. There was a time I would reflexively recoil and attempt to explain that I wasn't a racist, I just had different ideas about human nature, the importance of the individual, and how integral freedom and liberty were to the betterment of the human condition; and that the absolute protections we need to bring out the best in us, also required us to tolerate ideas we hate, because if we did not, the protections of our own ideas were not absolute, and we were not truly free. Now I tell them to !@#$ off, and they're bad people who make unfounded charges of racism because their ideas don't stand up to intellectual rigor.

Speaking of idiots, can you please share with the group the similarities between forming human chains for the stated purpose of shutting down an interstate highway because your candidate lost a federal election, and making social commentary on an internet message board? Thanks in advance.

Reflexively making baseless charges of racism when confronted with uncomfortable racial ideas which are not objectively racist is not going to help your cause. And by "your cause", please understand that I mean both direct and singularly you, while you're attempting to make your argument; but also the larger societal "you", when you're staring down the barrell of years 5-8 of the Trump Presidency. People who aren't racist are getting tired of being called racist in lieu of an argument being made against them on a truely intellectual level, and they aren't afraid of the social stigma of your label anymore, because you've (both you's again) so grossly overplayed your hand that the same exact thing has happened to everyone else they know or care about and your weapon has lost it's power. Everything that is happening, and will happen in the next few years, is a direct reaction to your own stupidity. Stated otherwise, it's your own damn fault. Enjoy what's coming. Let it serve as a lesson.

Any chance you'd like to add anything that's not functionally retarded? Your contributions here are rapidly becoming little more than a steady flow of stream of consciousness nonsense, invariably ping-ponging between completely absurd, demonstrably false, and not even tangentially related. Your content, for at least several months now, has become the roadside litter of this sub-forum: rank garbage littering an otherwise traversable thoroughfare, providing little more than an eyesore for the passenger simply trying to enjoy the view. This forum had enough stupid before you got here. Please stop adding to the pile.

I don't think it's so much linking President Obama to North Korea, as it is to drawing a distinction between he and the current President, and contrasting their work in regards to foreign policy. I'm much further along than you are related to what I'm seeing in DPRK (and elsewhere), though I can appreciate your position, and don't find it to be unreasonable.

To confirm, which 2016 conduct? There's a lot of slimy stuff they were doing in 2016, and the full OIG report is over a million pages long as I understand it. Are we talking email? Uranium 1? Comey? FISA?

"I'll have my cat well done, smothered in ketchup. Would you care for some stir-fried American bird?"

That's a tremendous way for a guy at a position you want to profile as a team leader to start becoming exactly that. By the nature of the game, he's going to have more intimate working relationships with the guys who play on his side of the ball, but he'll built a lot of credibility with the defensive unit as well by doing those sorts of things if he can actually make improvements to his game based on their feedback.

100% agreed. You'd want Allen to win it, as opposed to the other guys losing it.